Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BIRMINGHAM CORPORATION BILL

SHELL (STANLOW TO PARTINGTON PIPELINE) BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

WALLASEY CORPORATION BILL

Standing Order 208 (Notice of consideration of Lords Amendments) suspended; Lords Amendments to be considered forthwith.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Lords Amendments considered accordingly and agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Charles MacAndrew): I beg to move,
That the several Amendments to Standing Orders relating to Private Business hereinafter stated in the Schedule be made.

SCHEDULE

Standing Order 156A, line 8, at end insert "or".
Line 10, leave out from "authority" to end of line 12.
Line 14, leave out from "of" to end and add "General Grant, Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland".
Standing Order 156B, line 1, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 9 and insert "Standing Order 156A (Modification of practice as to charges on public revenue), so far as it relates to Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant, shall extend to any provision authorising expenditure by a local authority, but where a private bill contains any such provision which would or might

operate to increase the sums payable by way of such grant".
Line 17, leave out from first "of" to end of line 20 and insert "the provisions of the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland, as the case may be which relate to Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant".
Standing Order 191, line 10, leave out from "of" to end and insert "General Grant, Rate-deficiency Grant or Exchequer Equalisation Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales or in Scotland".

The Amendments on the Paper to the Private Business Standing Orders are necessary to take account of the provisions of the Local Government Act and the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill which have been passing through the House this Session.

Question put and agreed to.

PETITION

Rent Act, 1957 (Notices to Quit)

Mr. H. Butler: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a Petition to this House, signed by about 1,200 persons in my constituency, including a considerable number who have received notice to quit, which notice will expire whilst this House is in Recess. The Petition reads:
… in this area there are many hundreds of families who have received notice to quit under the Rent Act, 1957, and for whom the local authority can offer no hope of rehousing for years to come. That these families when evicted have no other place in which to live.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that Section II of the Rent Act, 1957, be repealed so tenants shall not be evicted from their homes unless equivalent alternative accommodation is provided.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

EXPERIMENTS ON LIVING ANIMALS

Address for Return of Experiments performed under the Act 39 & 40 Vict, c. 77, during 1957.—[Mr. Renton.]

Oral Answers to Questions — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

Legislative Councils

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what decision has been reached on the proposal of the Joint European and African Advisory Council for Bechuanaland that a legislative council should be established; and what action is being taken to establish legislative councils in Basutoland and Swaziland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): As I informed the House on 24th July, we are awaiting the High Commissioner's comments on the resolution of the Joint Advisory Council for the Bechuanaland Protectorate relating to legislative powers.
My noble Friend informed the Basutoland Council in May, 1956, that he was prepared to consider proposals for giving the Basutoland Council power to make laws on certain matters. The Basutoland Council have this week been considering a report on constitutional reform containing proposals for submission to my noble Friend.
No proposals are at present formulated for constitutional changes in Swaziland.

Mr. Brockway: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that detailed reply, may I ask if he does not think it time that this arrogance of these three Territories being governed by the personal decree of a High Commissioner living in another country was ended? Will he, during the period of the Recess, give his very active mind to the establishment of legislative councils in Bechuanaland, as has been demanded, and as is being demanded by the Basutoland National Council?

Mr. Alport: There is no question at all of arrogance in these matters, and any hon. Member who has any first-hand knowledge of the high standard of administration reached in those Territories will be proud of the achievement that it represents. As the hon. Member is well aware—and, indeed, as I have

said in my Answer—proposals are coming forward as a result of committees that have been considering the constitutional future in Basutoland, which will be considered in due course by my noble Friend.

Mr. J. Johnson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that we are all delighted with the liberal speech that he made in Pretoria during his tour, in which he is reported as saying that he hoped to see the constitutional evolution of the three Protectorates in the same way as our Colonies in other parts of Africa? Will he confirm that report? If so, we will wish him all power in his efforts in the coming months.

Mr. Alport: I think the hon. Gentleman had better await the outcome of the consideration of the proposals which are to come forward in due course from the Territories to my noble Friend.

Union of South Africa (Defence Facilities)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will enumerate the authorities with whom discussions took place with the European and African Advisory Councils in Bechuanaland and the Native Authority Councils in Basutoland and Swaziland before the conclusion of the Defence Agreement with the Government of the Union of South Africa which extends as facilities in the High Commission Territories.

Mr. Alport: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 24th July to the hon. Members for Govan (Mr. Rankin) and for Deptford (Sir L. Plummer). The consultations which took place with the appropriate authorities in the three Territories were conducted by the respective Resident Commissioners and officers of the Administrations. I would like to take this opportunity of expressing our appreciation of the part which His Excellency the High Commissioner, Sir Percivale Leisching, played in bringing the discussions with the Government of the Union of South Africa to a successful conclusion.

Mr. Brockway: But may I ask the hon. Gentleman two fundamental questions? First, why should this country enter into a defence agreement with the


Union of South Africa, which has a régime which is, in many respects, more tyrannical than that of Communist countries? Secondly, why should the people of the Protectorate, who indignantly oppose any union with South Africa, be committed to these defence arrangements without being consulted about them?

Mr. Alport: I do not think that responsible Members on the hon. Member's side, any more than hon. Members on this side of the House, will associate themselves with the expression of opinion that he has included in his supplementary question. Her Majesty's Government of the United Kingdom are responsible for the defence of the High Commission Territories. We recognise, as I said in reply to a supplementary last week, the important part which the Union Government have to play in the defence of Southern Africa as a whole, and we are satisfied that these discussions, which have taken place over a considerable period of time, are related exclusively to the common interest that exists between the High Commission Territories and the Union of South Africa with regard to the security of Southern Africa as a whole.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the Under-Secretary of State aware that, to the best of my knowledge, he has not even answered my hon. Friend's question? My hon. Friend asked, "What authorities?" and the only answer given is "The appropriate authorities". Can we know a little more about who are "the appropriate authorities"?

Mr. Alport: In Bechuanaland, Chief Bathoen, as Chairman of the African Advisory Council, and Mr. Russell England, as Chairman of the European Advisory Council, were approached by the Resident Commissioner. The Resident Commissioner also consulted the African Authority in Serowe—that is, Rasebolai Kgamane—and other Chiefs in the Protectorate. Mrs. Moremi, Regent of Ngamiland, was consulted by the Divisional Commissioner. In Basutoland and Swaziland, the Paramount Chiefs were approached by the respective Resident Commissioners. The Paramount Chief Regent of the Basuto agreed to the concession concerning the road relating to the radar installation, which is on Union territory.

Mr. Bottomley: Does this mean that those who were consulted did, in fact,

give their agreement? If that is not so, does it not emphasise the need to speed up the setting up of these legislative councils so that indigenous peoples can freely express their wishes?

Mr. Alport: I am quite certain that it would be the wish of the people in the Territories that matters regarding defence should remain the responsibility and decision of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Brockway: In view of the unsatisfactory reply, may I give notice that, with apologies for the inconvenience to yourself, I shall raise this matter at the earliest opportunity tomorrow morning?

Mr. Alport: As to the hon. Member's point of order, I personally would like an opportunity to reply to some of the points made and to explain some of these matters. I am only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman removed from the Order Paper the Adjournment Motion which was down for tomorrow.

Mr. Bottomley: On that, may I say that I, too, regret that the debate on the High Commission Territories had to be withdrawn for tomorrow. This is a matter of importance to the House. And I may say that the only reason for its withdrawal was that another very important Motion had to be debated and that the obvious responsibility rests with the Government, who should have provided time earlier.

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) gave notice late last night that he intended to raise this matter on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill tonight.

Mr. Brockway: indicated assent.

Mr. Speaker: Then I do not really know what he means by talking about tomorrow morning.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will publish a White Paper setting out in full the agreement reached with the Union Government and the nature and source of the representations he has received regarding the grant of defence facilities in the High Commission Territories to South Africa and the replies he has made to them.

Mr. Alport: No, Sir. The facilities to be accorded to the Union Government in the High Commission Territories have already been made public in the statement circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT on 21st July in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall). With regard to the second and third parts of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a Question today by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).

Mrs. Castle: Is not the Under-Secretary aware that that is really a totally unsatisfactory reply? Is it not the fact that the Answer of 21st July merely gave the heads of agreement? What I am asking for is the right of this House to know, in detail, what the agreement was. In such an important matter as this, information about the heads of agreement is quite inadequate. Further, is the hon. Gentleman not also aware that he has evaded an answer to the Question of my hon. Friend a moment ago? What we want to know is what the people consulted said in reply to the consultations. Is he not aware that the fact that he has not answered that and his evasiveness on these two points must encourage suspicion?

Mr. Alport: The hon. Lady is calling on her imagination if she assumes that in anything that has been agreed between the High Commissioner and the Union Government there are matters additional to those which were set out under the heads of agreement. I can assure her that that is not the case, and I must say that I do not think that it is in the interests of the Territories that she should try to inflame suspicion that there is anything behind the agreement other than those matters that have already been put out.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH REPUBLIC

British Note (Incidents)

Mr. Hyde: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what reply he has received from the Government of the Irish Republic to the Note delivered on behalf of Her Majesty's Government on 18th July protesting at the recent Irish Republican Army outrages in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Alport: No written reply has been received from the Government of the Irish

Republic, but on 18th July, when our Ambassador delivered the Note to the Minister for External Affairs, the Minister said that he and his colleagues equally deplored this latest series of incidents and had been greatly disturbed by their widespread character. He assured the Ambassador that the Republican Government would continue to do their utmost to suppress violence and bring these incidents to an end. The Minister also drew attention to the remarks made by Mr. de Valera in the Dail the previous day condemning once again the use of force. I understand that since the incidents in question at least fifteen arrests have been made in the Irish Republic.

Mr. Hyde: While I am sure that everyone in the House will welcome his statement, and whilst I have no doubt that the Government of the Irish Republic are doing their best to cope with these outrages, is my hon. Friend aware that the outrages are almost invariably perpetrated by young men in their twenties, and that the root of the trouble really lies in the version of Irish history they are taught at school, which tends to glorify assassination? Could he not encourage the importation of more objective history textbooks into Southern Ireland, which would give a cool and less impassioned account of Irish and Anglo-Irish history?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think the Minister is responsible for the school books used in Ireland.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION

Part-time Education (Students)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Education whether he will issue an up-to-date version of table 4 of the White Paper on technical education, giving full details of part-time day release industry by industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): Yes, Sir. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a table giving the latest figures available. It shows that the proportion of workers under the age of 18 who are released to attend part-time day classes has increased from 27 per cent. to 33·8 per cent. for boys and from 7 per cent. to 8·4 per cent. for girls.

Following is the table:


STUDENTS UNDER 18 YEARS RELEASED BY THEIR EMPLOYERS IN 1956–57 TO ATTEND COURSES FOR PART-TIME EDUCATION SHOWN AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE ESTIMATED NUMBER UNDER 18 YEARS, WHO ARE INSURED UNDER THE NATIONAL INSURANCE ACTS


England and Wales


Industry
Boys
Girls


(1) Estimated Numbers insured at end of May, 1957
(2) Numbers released by their Employers
(3) Column (2) as a percentage of Column (1)
(4) Estimated Numbers insured at end of May, 1957
(5) Numbers released by their Employers
(6) Column (5) as a percentage of Column (4)





Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
…
…
…
38,340
1,127
2·9
7,370
109
1·5


Mining and Quarrying
…
36,300
21,663
59·7
1,670
139
8·3


Treatment of Non-metalliferous Mining
…
…
…
10,090
976
9·7
7,510
178
2·4


Products other than Coal:








Chemicals and Allied Trades
8,670
4,143
47·8
13,590
2,895
21·3


Metal Manufacture
…
…
16,230
7,624
47·0
5,360
741
13·8


Engineering, Shipbuilding and Electrical Goods
…
72,980
52,491
71·9
34,630
3,524
10·2


Vehicles
…
…
…
46,320
17,540
37·9
13,950
870
6·2


Metal Goods not elsewhere specified
…
…
…
16,290
3,900
23·9
13,490
773
5·7


Precision Instruments, Jewellery, etc.
…
…
…
4,990
1,374
27·5
4,350
155
3·6


Textiles
…
…
…
14,640
2,238
15·3
42,730
1,516
3·5


Leather, Leather Goods and Fur
…
…
…
2,060
180
8·7
2,480
194
7·8


Clothing
…
…
…
11,950
2,489
20·8
58,670
1,536
2·6


Food, Drink and Tobacco
…
21,170
2,837
13·4
33,780
3,125
9·3


Manufactures of Wood and Cork
…
…
…
17,520
1,994
11·4
5,390
142
2·6


Paper and Printing
…
…
19,600
7,529
38·4
25,820
705
2·7


Other Manufacturing Industries
…
…
…
6,170
1,564
25·3
10,360
881
8·5


Building and Contracting
…
65,360
34,233
52·4
5,240
184
3·5


Gas, Electricity and Water Supply
…
…
…
7,010
5,764
82·2
2,800
567
20·3


Transport and Communication
…
…
…
37,860
9,374
24·8
15,260
4,184
27·4


Distributive Trades
…
…
79,240
5,519
7·0
161,340
5,250
3·3


Insurance, Banking and Finance
…
…
…
7,270
62
0·9
22,680
193
0·9


Public Administration and Defence
…
…
…
10,060
6,969
69·3
12,870
7,508
58·3


Professional Services
…
12,270
3,494
28·5
33,500
11,456
34·2


Miscellaneous Services
…
18,610
1,033
5·6
48,160
2,335
4·9


Total
…
…
…
581,000
196,117
33·8
583,000
49,160
8·4


The table is, in general, comparable with Table IV of the White Paper on Technical Education (Cmd. 9703) but the industries in which the students are employed have been classified more accurately. This largely explains why the percentage of released students appears to have increased greatly in some industries and to have fallen in some others (e.g., engineering).

Grants and Allowances

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Education what would be the cost to both central and local government if the means test on maintenance grants of students at universities, technical colleges, and teacher training colleges were abolished.

Sir E. Boyle: About £7 million a year.

Mr. Skeffington: In view of this trifling amount involved as against total national expenditure, and the fact that our future depends so much upon having the maximum number of students at university colleges and similar institutions, will the Minister consider recommending much more generous scales than now apply, because many students and


their parents suffer from considerable financial worry? This cannot be a good thing for university education.

Sir E. Boyle: The Question specifically relates to the means test. In my Answer to a Question asked last week by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), I mentioned that the terms of reference of the Anderson Committee were fairly wide and generous.

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities are implementing his latest proposed increases in the maintenance allowances for children remaining at school over the age of 15 years; how many have partially adopted his suggestions; and how many have made no increases in the allowances paid.

Sir E. Boyle: One hundred and thirty-three local education authorities have adopted the proposals and five more have partially adopted them. The other eight authorities have not notified my right hon. Friend of any changes in their arrangements.

Dr. King: Is the Minister aware that this is a most gratifying and excellent Answer revealing progress on the part of local authorities? As the scales which the Minister introduced are a really valuable contribution to the education of poor but able children, in his next circular to authorities which have not adopted the scale will he convey the need for adopting it?

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend wholly agrees with the hon. Member that the figures I have given represent an extremely good response from local education authorities. He does not think that any further action is at present called for, but he will, of course, bear in mind the last point made by the hon. Member.

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Education whether he will revise his method of assessing grants for self-supporting students attending one-year courses at departments of education so as to enable them, if they are under 25 years of age, to receive grants in respect of a wife, children, or wholly dependent relative.

Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir.

Mr. Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why not?

Sir E. Boyle: The whole purpose of dependants' grants is to help really good older people who will bring valuable outside experience into the schools. It is the view of the Department that this can hardly happen if people are under the age of 25 when they start training.

Mr. Stewart: Can the Parliamentary Secretary explain this? It would appear from his regulations that a young man proposing to take up a course of training of this kind and who has a widowed mother dependent upon him will get a grant if he is over 25 years of age, but not if he is 23 or 24. On what basis is this justifiable?

Sir E. Boyle: The hon. Member has written to me about the case of Mr. Hoon, and I shall shortly be sending him a full reply. Perhaps he will await my answer, which will contain full details.

Technical Examinations

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Education if he will review the composition of the Secondary Schools Examination Council with a view to enlisting the services of personnel knowledgeable in junior technical examinations in modern schools.

Sir E. Boyle: The Secondary School Examinations Council already includes persons with experience of examinations in secondary modern schools. But my right hon. Friend will certainly bear the hon. Member's suggestion in mind in considering future appointments to the Council.

Mr. Owen: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the composition of the Council as submitted at the moment contains only one seat from the secondary modern schools? It is true that there are about 12 persons with some experience of secondary school routine and organisation, but there are still 20 persons whose experience is quite remote from present-day living conditions and problems in secondary schools. Therefore, is it not important to reconsider the whole set-up?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that two members of the Secondary Schools Examination Council have first-hand experience of secondary modern schools, but my right hon. Friend will certainly bear this point in mind.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Education what advice he has received from his Education Advisory Council concerning the present system of junior technical examinations in modern schools.

Sir E. Boyle: None, yet.

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Education if he is aware of the different scales of payments for students who enter for junior technical examinations and for those who take the General Certificate of Education examination; and whether he will make a statement.

Sir E. Boyle: I assume the hon. Member is referring to the fact that pupils under 16 taking the General Certificate of Education examination have their fees remitted but those taking technical examinations do not. On this I have nothing to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 13th February.

Mr. Owen: The difficulty seems to be Circular 326. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the northern counties secondary technical examination 34 students sat and had to pay an examination fee of 14s. and that one boy of 16 who sat for the G.C.E. had his fee paid by the Ministry? Surely there is a totally unfair discrimination. Further, is the Minister aware that in order to encourage technical education these days it is important to remove this barrier to students?

Sir E. Boyle: The fees charged by examining bodies are fixed by each body. My right hon. Friend does not see any reason to interfere with their discretion, but if the hon. Gentleman has a case in mind and will write to me I will consider it.

Mr. M. Stewart: Is it not a fact that the point raised by my hon. Friend relates not to the fee charged by the examining body but to the question whether the Ministry ought to be prepared to meet it, as it does in the case of the General Certificate of Education? In view of the importance of technical education, ought not that point to be reconsidered?

Sir E. Boyle: It is within the discretion of local education authorities to pay the fee for external examinations other than the G.C.E. But certainly I will look at the point and, as I say, if the hon.

Gentleman has any particular point in mind and will write to me about it, I will consider the matter.

Mr. Speaker: I would call attention to the fact that we have only reached Question No. 10. I hope that supplementary questions will be much shorter than they have been so far.

Teachers

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education whether he has noted that the number of pupils in maintained and assisted schools will reach a peak of 6,946,000 in 1961 and will be 6,937,000 in 1968; and what steps he has taken to increase the output of teachers from training colleges and university education departments and from other sources.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend has recently considered policy on the training of teachers taking into account not only these estimates, but also the number of teachers likely to be leaving the profession and the introduction of the three-year course of training. As a result, he has asked the training colleges to take emergency measures to admit as many extra students as they can in 1958 and 1959. He has also put in hand the first instalment of a permanent expansion of the colleges and is considering what further expansion is needed.

Mr. Moss: I know that.

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education what tentative estimates he has made of the increases in the number of full-time teachers in maintained and assisted schools likely to result in the years 1958 to 1963, inclusive; and to what extent there is likely to be a deficiency of teachers to maintain existing standards and to secure the abolition of oversize classes, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: On the assumption that the three-year course of training is introduced in 1960, my right hon. Friend estimates that there will be a net increase of some 15,000 to 20,000 teachers between January, 1958, and January, 1963, inclusive. This would produce some improvement in existing staffing standards, but not nearly enough to reduce all classes to regulation size.

Mr. Moss: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the assumption that he made


in April, 1957, of an annual increase of 6,000 in the 1960s—that is ignoring the three-year course introduced in 1960—still holds?

Sir E. Boyle: The estimate which I have just given assumes an average net increase each year of between 5,000 and 6,000 teachers until January, 1962, but I would like to say that we realise that this is a point of the greatest importance and that we are considering it most urgently at the moment.

Mr. Dugdale: asked the Minister of Education how many local education authorities in their return of staffing, dated January, 1958, were below the quota established in Circular 318.

Sir E. Boyle: ninety-six, but of these 59 had less than 2 per cent. fewer teachers than their quota.

Mr. Dugdale: Can the Minister state, first, what is the total shortage of teachers in these areas, and secondly, what proposals he has to remedy what even he, with his usual optimism, must admit is a very serious situation?

Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put down his first question. As to the second question, I know that West Bromwich in particular has had great difficulty in finding teachers for next autumn, but we are still watching this position very carefully and we are, as he knows, keeping on the quota system to ensure that other local authorities do not get more than their fair share of teachers.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Minister of Education whether he now has anything further to report in respect of accepting demobilised Service officers, with special training in mathematics and science, as teachers; and what special arrangements have been made for their acceptance and teacher training.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. By the middle of July about 85 former regular members of the Services of all ranks had been accepted for teacher training courses starting in 1958, and nearly 50 more for 1959. Those with suitable qualifications are being accepted for shortened, one-year courses. I do not know how many have had special training in mathematics and science, but colleges have been asked to give preference, other things being equal, to applicants of this kind.

Mr. Pitman: Is it possible during the period of very great shortage to engage these people for administrative duties so that staff who are greatly overburdened with administrative work, particularly headmasters, may be relieved for teaching duties in the schools which are big enough to benefit from such treatment?

Sir E. Boyle: Certainly, I will consider that point and mention it to my right hon. Friend. The figures which I have given seem to show that the normal machinery is working fairly well and that there is no need for special measures.

General Certificate of Education (Subjects)

Mr. Pitman: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the recent circular from his Secondary Schools Examination Council, directing the universities and other bodies examining for the General Certificate of Education to discontinue examinations in certain subjects now widely taught in secondary schools and examined by them, represents a change from his policy of certification of subjects appropriate to the stage of education at all secondary schools; to what extent it represents a return to the policy of certification of subjects appropriate only to a small percentage of students normally at grammar schools seeking admission to a university; and to what extent it affects schools teaching, and girls studying, secretarial subjects.

Sir E. Boyle: There is no change of basic policy. This decision follows from policies already long agreed by the Council as regards the criteria for admitting subjects for the General Certificate examination. I cannot agree that it is a retrograde decision as suggested by the hon. Member. While it will inevitably affect schools teaching and pupils studying secretarial subjects, there is nothing to prevent the particular subjects the hon. Member has in mind being examined under other auspices, and they will continue to be taught in the schools as before.

Mr. Pitman: If such subjects as plumbing, needlework and woodwork which are taught in secondary modern schools are to be the subject of examination in the future, why is there this discrimination?


Does it not seem to support the suggestion by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) that there is a lack of appreciation amongst the S.S.E.C. members of the problems of secondary modern schools, and particularly in relation to the subjects taught?

Sir E. Boyle: I know that the Council gave this matter very careful thought before coming to a decision. My right hon. Friend feels bound to accept the Council's advice on this very difficult question.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Minister of Education to what extent the recent circular from the Secretary of his Secondary Schools Examination Council affects the academic freedom of each university to conduct examinations in view of the fact that the Council is declining in future to issue the General Certificate of Education to successful candidates in certain subjects hitherto so examined by them and widely taught in secondary schools.

Sir E. Boyle: The recent letter in no way affects the freedom of the examining bodies or the universities to conduct examinations in any subjects they wish. But the award of certificates within the General Certificate of Education is my right hon. Friend's responsibility and he must decide, on the best advice available, the suitability of subjects for certification.

Mr. Pitman: Is it not rather unfortunate that in their letter dated 19th April the emphasis is on the shortness of time for preparing fresh syllabuses excluding these subjects, and that it indicates that there is a direction to universities on the subjects in which they should examine?

Sir E. Boyle: Let me make it clear that universities and examining bodies are free to organise examinations on their own initiative outside the scope of the General Certificate of Education, and they frequently do so. When the matter was last discussed by the Secondary Schools Examination Council only one member of the Council dissented from the decision which was reached.

North-East England

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Education the names of the local education authorities in North-East England and the school population in each area;

how many children in each district are getting a secondary grammar school education or its equivalent, including the pupils in direct grant schools; and what estimate has been made of the number of school children in each area expressed as a percentage of the population in those areas that could take the grammar school course with advantage if extra accommodation existed.

Sir E. Boyle: I am writing to the hon. Member giving him the information asked for in the first two parts of the Question. It would be impossible to make the estimate asked for in the third part of the Question.

Mr. McKay: The hon. Gentleman said yesterday that in Northumberland there were vacant places which could not be filled. Could he tell me how many vacant places there are in the grammar schools in the county, and whether the existence of these vacant places is due to the fact that the teachers already have too many scholars to teach, or that parents will not send their children to grammar schools; or is it because of their inability in Northumberland to pay the fees?

Sir E. Boyle: We discussed this matter early this morning. There is no absolutely consistent description of a grammar school course, and I think the hon. Member should await the letter I am writing.

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Education (1) how many free places the Northumberland Education Committee are providing in private boarding schools, and how many in county boarding schools; what is the average cost to the local education authority of providing a place in a boarding school; and what is the average income of the parents of those who are getting the free places;
(2) how many parents of pupils having places assigned to local education authorities in boarding schools in Northumberland are paying fees; what is the lowest fee, the highest fee, and the average amount being paid; what is the lowest, the highest and the average income of the parents of these children; and what are the occupations in general of those parents who are paying fees to the Northumberland local education authority.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend does not receive returns which would enable him to answer these Questions.

The Wrekin Area

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Minister of Education what plans he has for the development of technical education in the Wrekin area of Shropshire.

Sir E. Boyle: The building of a new college of further education at Wellington is expected to start this year. The college will replace and supplement accommodation at the Walker Technical Institute at Oakengates.

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Minister of Education what has been the total capital expenditure on schools and colleges in the Wrekin area between 1951 and 1958, which he has authorised.

Sir E. Boyle: Between January, 1951 and June, 1958 building projects have been approved to the value of £907,037, excluding furniture and equipment. My right hon. Friend hopes that two more projects costing about £250,000 will soon be ready for final approval.

New School, Ketley

Mr. W. Yates: asked the Minister of Education when he expects the new modern school at Ketley to be completed and ready to take pupils; how many pupils there wlil be; and what he estimates will be the cost of this school.

Sir E. Boyle: This school will open in September with about 400 pupils. Its cost on tender, including accommodation for evening classes, was £141,689.

Mr. Yates: Is my hon. Friend aware that those three answers are very satisfactory and that they confirm that the Wrekin area, which is the old Industrial Revolution area, will receive a secondary school? Secondly, do they not dispose once for all of the idea that the Conservative Party wish to cut education?

Sir E. Boyle: I think my answers also confirm that Shropshire has a conspicuously good local education authority.

Redruth Secondary Grammar School

Mr. Hayman: asked the Minister of Education when the Cornwall Education Committee expects to carry out improvements to the wholly inadequate provision of washbasins, closets and urinal space at Redruth Secondary Grammar School.

Sir E. Boyle: Before April, 1959.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that 18 months ago he told me that these improvements would be carried out last year, and that there has been no extension of the offices at this school for 50 years? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that 50 years ago the school population was half what it is now?

Sir E. Boyle: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this job is one of those costing less than £10,000 which the authority expects to start between January of this year and March of next year.

Grammar School Education

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education to what extent nationally children's chances of receiving a grammar school education have declined in the last five years.

Sir E. Boyle: The proportion of 13-year-old pupils attending grammar schools or similar courses in other secondary schools excluding comprehensive schools was 20·9 per cent. in 1953 and 20·3 per cent. in 1957.

Mr. Swingler: Will the Parliamentary Secertary recheck these figures? Is it that Newcastle-under-Lyme is peculiar in having suffered a drastic decline in the proportion of children who can receive a grammar school education, or is the introduction of the phrase "courses of a similar character" meant to gloss over the fact that the Minister's policy has whittled down the proportion of children who can get to grammar schools?

Sir E. Boyle: No, certainly not. On the whole, plans made by local education authorities for providing new grammar school places will keep up with the current increase in the age groups entering secondary schools, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will not overlook the very great improvement in the secondary modern schools in this country during the term of office of this Government in providing the courses which children require.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Education, in view of the decline in the percentage of children able to enter grammar schools in Newcastle-under-Lyme from 19·5 in 1954 to 15·4 in 1958, what action he is taking to improve education opportunities in the excepted district.

Sir E. Boyle: Work is about to start on a grammar school at Kidsgrove, and a technical school at Biddulph has been approved for starting in the current year's programme.

Mr. Swingler: Whilst applauding the work done in secondary modern schools to provide chances of taking the General Certificate of Education, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the anxiety amongst large numbers of parents at the decrease in the proportion of children who are able to get to grammar and high schools having courses of a certain kind, as shown in this Question? What is the Ministry going to do about that?

Sir E. Boyle: Let us pay tribute where progress is occurring. Many pupils from Biddulph and Kidsgrove are going to Newcastle, and they will not need to do so when the schools to which I have referred are completed.

Mr. M. Stewart: Does the hon. Gentleman remember that the President of the Board of Trade, when he was Minister of Education, urged the view that steps should be taken to get greater uniformity in the proportion of grammar school places in different parts of the country and to get it to a figure of something like 25 per cent.? Since he made that statement, has any progress been made in either of those directions?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, we have adjusted building programmes to help those local authorities which are most short of grammar school provisions. Notably I would refer to Nottingham and to Salford. I believe that in general in recent years there has been a great improvement in the average level over the country.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: Does not my hon. Friend think that the anxiety over the building of grammar schools has been increased by some of the suggestions made by the party opposite?

Secondary School Children (All-Age Schools)

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education if he will state the names of county borough local education committees with 15 per cent. or over of secondary school children still in all-age primary schools, with their respective percentages.

Sir E. Boyle: This information is contained in List 69, of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Dr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that that list shows that, of 14 local authorities, in nine over 20 per cent. of the children still receive secondary education in all-age schools, in three over 40 per cent. and in one 55 per cent. of the children are still in all-age schools? Since the rural reorganisation was approved to get the proportion of children in the rural areas below 15 per cent., will not the hon. Gentleman stop the ban on urban authorities tackling the job of getting the complete reorganisation into full effect?

Sir E. Boyle: We certainly hope to provide a full secondary education at separate senior schools for all senior pupils as soon as economic conditions permit. As, however, the hon. Member knows, the country has suffered from a shortage of resources for capital under successive Governments ever since the war. It would be wrong for me to give optimistic promises which any Government would find it difficult to fulfil in the immediate future.

Teacher-Pupil Ratios

Dr. King: asked the Minister of Education the teacher-pupil ratio in the independent grammar schools, the direct grammar schools and the State grammar schools, respectively.

Sir E. Boyle: In January, 1957, the pupil-teacher ratios in maintained grammar schools, direct grant grammar schools and independent secondary schools recognised as efficient were 18:1, 18:2 and
12:1 respectively. Nearly three-quarters of the pupils in the last-named schools are boarders.

Dr. King: Since the Government claim, as we do, to believe in equality of opportunity as between child and child, how can the Minister justify the disparities in the teacher-pupil ratio, not on educational grounds, but on social grounds? What steps is he taking to remove that disparity?

Sir E. Boyle: The short answer surely is that there is the world of difference between levelling down and levelling up. I have answered one or two earlier Questions today about the urgency with which


the Government regard the problem of teacher supply generally. It is important, however, to remember that the majority of independent schools to which I have referred are boarding schools. In all boarding schools, including maintained boarding schools, staff ratios always tend to be higher.

Science Laboratories

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware that adequate science laboratory accommodation exists in less than 10 per cent. of maintained grammar schools; and what steps he proposes to take to improve the situation.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend does not accept the hon. Member's assumption, but he has approved a large number of building proposals which will continue the steady improvement of science accommodation at these schools.

Mr. Prentice: Has the hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to a recent survey, carried out by the National Union of Teachers and three other organisations, published in the current issue of the School Science Review, in which the schools themselves have given the figure of less than 10 per cent. of schools having adequate science laboratories and in which they say, further, that when building projects which are under way are completed only about 16 per cent. of the schools will have adequate science laboratories?

Sir E. Boyle: I have noticed that article. The same survey pointed out, however, that 44 per cent. of the schools had science accommodation conforming with the suggestion made in the Ministry of Education's buildings bulletin. It should not be forgotten that extensions to science accommodation at over 100 grammar schools have been approved for the 1958–59 and 1959–60 building programmes. I quite agree with the hon. Member, however, that we certainly should not be content as yet.

Mr. Albu: Do not the figures given the other day indicate that the amount granted for State-aided schools is much less than that being granted by the Industrial Fund for fee-paying schools?

Sir E. Boyle: In my view, the hon. Member, who asked a Question last

week, slightly exaggerates the point. My recollection is that the corresponding figures for the same period are £2 million for the maintained schools and about £2¾ million provided by the Industrial Fund. The disproportion is not quite so great as the hon. Member implied in his Question last week.

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Education why the regulations issued by his Department allow lower minimum standards for science laboratories in girls' grammar schools than in boys' grammar schools.

Sir E. Boyle: My right hon. Friend's regulations make no such distinction. They lay down standards for the teaching area as a whole, not for laboratories taken separately.

Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister aware that in the survey in the School Science Review it is claimed by those making the survey that one of the reasons for the small proportion of girls taking science subjects in the sixth form compared with boys is the lower standard of accommodation? Will the hon. Gentleman look carefully at this position in view of the fact that we need so many more scientists and that girls' schools ought to provide a larger proportion of them?

Sir E. Boyle: I am on record in this House on many occasions as having stressed the importance of girls playing a larger part in our national scientific and technological effort.

Schools (Amalgamations)

Colonel R. H. Glyn: asked the Minister of Education whether he is aware of the concern throughout North Dorset at the proposal to amalgamate the Gillingham Grammar School, which originated in the reign of King Henry VIII, with the Gillingham Modern School; and to what extent his approval to the amalgamation was given on the understanding that the proposed new school would be a comprehensive school.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend approved the amalgamation of these schools only after he had thoroughly satisfied himself that this was the best means of meeting the various needs of all the children of secondary school age in the area.

Colonel Glyn: What steps were taken to inform the public that this would be a comprehensive school and to inform parents of their right to object if they so desired? Is my hon. Friend aware that within the last few days, I have had letters signed by over 260 parents stating that they had no previous knowledge of this matter and now wish to object to it?

Sir E. Boyle: I have tried carefully to read all the papers on this matter. There is no doubt that the local education authority fully performed its duty of publishing notices under the Act. It is unfortunate that in my hon. and gallant Friend's Question the word "comprehensive" was used in this context, because it tends to excite rather strong passions. The point at issue is a simple one. There was a small two-form entry grammar school and a two-form entry secondary-modern school. After examining the position carefully, my right hon. Friend decided that the educational advantage was on the side of having a four-form entry secondary school because that would be the best for the children in the area.

Colonel R. H. Glyn: asked the Minister of Education how many grammar schools in Great Britain have been amalgamated with other schools since the war; and how many of these amalgamations have been in the county of Dorset.

Sir E. Boyle: Fifty-five maintained grammar schools in England and Wales, including one in Dorset, had by January, 1958, been amalgamated with schools of other types or extended to accommodate pupils of all levels of ability.

Colonel Glyn: Is my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Dorset County Authority proposes to amalgamate three further grammar schools, making four in all, and that this is so much above the national average that I should like him to scrutinise the county's proposals closely?

Sir E. Boyle: We have had one case at Bridport; this afternoon my hon. and gallant Friend has a Question concerning Gillingham, and I understand that the Dorset authority proposes to replace the existing school at Beaminster by a school which would admit all pupils of secondary school age in the area. When that

proposal comes to us officially with the objections, it will be considered carefully on its educational merits. Surely, that must be the right way to proceed in these matters, as opposed to hon. Members opposite, who wish to require local education authorities to organise education in accordance with a preconceived doctrine. Our method is very different.

Miss Bacon: Will the Parliamentary Secretary direct his hon. and gallant Friend's attention to the Gallup poll published yesterday in the News Chronicle?

Sir E. Boyle: Children are more important than Gallup polls. What we on this side are concerned with is to do our best for the children in all areas of the country.

Mr. M. Stewart: Has the Minister seen an interesting report in a Dorset local paper reporting proceedings at the Alfred Colfox School, Bridport, in which it was made clear that the fears entertained by some people about the comprehensive school are ill-founded and how well this school is serving the needs of the area?

Sir E. Boyle: The important thing, now that my right hon. Friend has made his decision after considering the matter carefully, is that the new secondary school at Gillingham should get off under the best possible auspices with the maximum amount of local good will.

New School, Wilnecote

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Education when he now expects work to begin on the construction of a new secondary school at Wilnecote, in the county of Warwick; and why the promise to begin work in the summer of 1958 has not been kept.

Sir E. Boyle: It will be several months yet before work will start. Satisfactory sketch plans have taken longer to complete than expected, but they were agreed by my Department last week.

Mr. Moss: Does the hon. Gentleman recollect that this school was approved on 16th October, 1956, and that on 14th March, 1957, he stated categorically in this House that work would commence in the summer of 1958? Is he not well aware of the enormous difficulties which will arise unless this school is built? Can I rely upon his present statement?

Sir E. Boyle: Yes. I very much regret the delay. The project is an instalment of a larger school and it has taken time to solve a large number of complex problems which involved delay. The hon. Member can be assured that he can rest on the statement I have made.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

U.S.S.R. and China (Trade)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he is taking to open negotiations with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for the purpose of extending trade with that country, for a new trade agreement, in view of the readiness of Russia to make similar agreements with other West European nations.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): No such negotiations are contemplated. Trade is flowing freely over a wide range of goods and I have no reason to think that it would be assisted by a trade agreement.

Mr. Allaun: Since the President of the Board of Trade himself has expressed the desire for more exports of consumer goods and like manufactures to Russia, and particularly if full benefit is to be derived from yesterday's welcome news of relaxations, will not the right hon. Gentleman seek such an agreement quickly? Has not every other major Western European country signed such an agreement? Why have we not done so?

Sir D. Eccles: We do not think that an agreement would help, because the goods which Russia sells us come into this country on open general licence. In other words, there is nothing on our side which we could offer. It is our information that the Soviet Government are limited only by shortage of sterling from buying more than they are buying now.

Mrs. Castle: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that British subsidiaries of United States companies are being prevented from selling to Russia and China goods not on the embargoed list because of United States restrictions on the parent companies; and whether he will discuss this problem with the American Government, with a view to removing these restrictions on British firms.

Sir D. Eccles: No, Sir; but if I had information of a specific case, I would look into the matter further.

Mrs. Castle: Is the right hon. Gentle-aware that there are British firms making innocuous articles such as typewriters and electric shavers, which are not allowed to export such goods to China because of the total embargo on the export of any goods to China by the parent companies? Will he raise this matter with the American Government if I send him particulars?

Sir D. Eccles: I think the hon. Lady would do well to wait and see the changes in the embargo list.

Mrs. Castle: It does not affect them.

British Products (Quality and Prices)

Mr. Osborne: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is satisfied that the continued improvement in quality and price of British products is sufficient to maintain this country's volume of trade in competitive export markets; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir. I am convinced British products can sell on their merits and that prices are broadly competitive.

Mr. Osborne: Is my right hon. Friend not convinced that the vast majority of British manufacturers produce really reliable goods at fair prices? Can he take any steps to stop the nagging of hon. Members opposite, who pick out an infinitesimal number of British manufacturers and thereby do the country a great deal of harm?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree with my hon. Friend that the quality of British goods remains high. What we need is vigorous salesmanship.

Distribution of Industry (Assistance)

Mr. Leavey: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps he intends to take under the powers conferred upon him by the Distribution of Industry Act to help those parts of Lancashire now seriously affected by conditions in the cotton industry.

Sir D. Eccles: I gave the House yesterday, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd), a


list of the places where the Government are ready to give financial assistance under the powers conferred by the Act. None of the cotton towns is on that list because, I am glad to say, none is suffering from high and persistent unemployment.

Mr. Leavey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his Answer, though I appreciate that it was, to some extent, anticipated by his statement yesterday. In view of the need for diversification, is he aware that there is a real danger now that both material and human resources may not be fully employed in the not-too-distant future, and will he accept my plea, therefore, that he take the most vigorous action to exploit all the powers given to him under the Act, and any more he can get hold of, to anticipate events so far as he can rather than wait until the moment has arrived when we are in serious difficulty?

Sir D. Eccles: I appreciate my hon. Friend's anxieties, and I assure him that we are watching the position very carefully.

Mr. Jay: As the omission of all the cotton areas from the list has come as a shock to many people, will the President of the Board of Trade say now, since he did not make his statement in the House, whether the unemployment percentage was his sole reason for leaving them out?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, the unemployment percentage is the criterion we use, and I am glad to say that, at present, there is not high and persistent unemployment in the cotton towns.

Import and Export Prices

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the percentage reduction, during the past three years, of import prices of raw materials; to what extent benefits from the reductions accrued to the export trades; and what was the comparable percentage of reductions of export prices.

Sir D. Eccles: The index of import prices of basic materials rose by 9 per cent. between June, 1955, and April, 1957, and fell by 15 per cent. betwen April, 1957 and June, 1958. I cannot estimate the varying benefits to the export trades, but the proportion of the value of all

manufactures attributable to imported materials is about one-quarter, and there is a considerable time lag before changes in prices could be reflected in those of the finished product. Export prices have increased by 8 per cent. over the same period, although they stopped rising about a year ago.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that our balance of payments benefited to the extent of approximately £258 million during the past six years? If so, having regard to the importance of the export trade, should that not reflect itself in benefits in prices in the export trade?

Sir D. Eccles: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the terms of trade have moved in our favour, but the proportion of the price in exports attributable to a fall of 15 per cent. in the imported content is really quite small.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the President of the Board of Trade the percentage of reduction in the price of imported raw materials during the past twelve months, and the percentage price reductions charged to manufacturing industries.

Sir D. Eccles: The index of import prices of basic materials fell by about 15 per cent. between June, 1957, and June, 1958. There is no index of prices paid by manufacturing industry for imported materials.

Mr. Ellis Smith: In view of the importance of the export trade, particularly for the future, has not the time arrived when the President of the Board of Trade should consider the serious effect of action taken by those trade associations which maintain the prices of raw materials to the extent that they do?

Sir D. Eccles: If the hon. Gentleman could give me information on that subject, I should be glad to have it, but I think that the lower prices of imported materials are beginning to work their way through the economy.

Fruit

Mr. Braine: asked the President of the Board of Trade (1) if he will give details of the specific quotas to be allotted for the purchase of fresh, dried,


and canned fruits from the United States of America under the recent agreement to import some $20 million worth of such foodstuffs; and
(2) what representations he has received from Commonwealth Governments or producer interests in respect of the recent agreement to import some $20 million worth of fruit into the United Kingdom, having regard to the fact that Commonwealth supplies of certain fruits are likely to be in excess of the demand from the British market; what answers have been given; and what decisions have been made.

Sir D. Eccles: We are in close and confidential communication with the Commonwealth Governments on this matter. I hope to publish the specific quotas in about a week's time.

Mr. Braine: In view of the fact that Commonwealth producers can supply most of the needs of this country, but not all, can my right hon. Friend say whether this has been taken into account in fixing the quotas? He will be aware that there is some doubt and misapprehension among Commonwealth producers on this score.

Sir D. Eccles: The Commonwealth Governments have, on the whole, welcomed this change, which is, I think, better than receiving the fruit under aid, and we do take into consideration, as my hon. Friend knows, the interests of the producers themselves.

Port Facilities, Barry (Use)

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware of the need for export industries to provide shipments to replace diminishing coal exports from the Port of Barry; if he will take steps to promote the establishment in Barry of such industries; and if he will make a statement.

Sir D. Eccles: I wish that the port facilities available in Barry were used to the full. They are borne in mind in any discussions which my Department have with possible users.

Mr. Gower: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is difficult for the port to build up any general cargo traffic unless there is a regular volume of bottom cargo available and large cargo liners call

regularly? Will he bring this to the attention of the people concerned?

Sir D. Eccles: Yes, Sir.

British Holidays and Travel Association

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the President of the Board of Trade what conditions he attaches to the grant in aid of the British Holidays and Travel Association; and whether he will exercise supervision over the inclusion of hotels in their list of hotels officially recommended to tourists from abroad.

Sir D. Eccles: As the conditions attaching to the grant-in-aid are lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. To the second part of the Question, the answer is "No, Sir". The compilation of a hotel guide demands knowledge and experience which a Government Department does not possess.

Mr. Robinson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this official list includes the Goring Hotel, Victoria, which refused admission to three coloured American ladies despite the fact that they had booked their rooms many months in advance? As the Minister responsible for tourism, does he not feel that he should take some steps to prevent the colour bar spreading to London hotels or, at any rate, express his personal detestation of the practice?

Sir D. Eccles: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to say that I deplore very much discrimination on grounds of colour.

Following is the information:

Conditions Attaching to Grant in Aid to the Association by the Board of Trade under Class VI, Vote 2

1. The Director General is the officer nominated by the Association to be responsible for those duties which in a Government Department would be the responsibility of the Accounting Officer. He will be responsible for seeing that the following conditions are observed, and he will be associated with the Accounting Officer of the Board of Trade on matters relative to the expenditure of the Association from the Grant in Aid arising before the Public Accounts Committee.
2. For the purpose of day-to-day financial administration, the Director General will control the expenditure of the Association, and, either personally or through the Administrative Officer of the Association, will be the link


between the Association and the Finance Division of the Board of Trade in regulating the financial aspects of the Association's activities.
3. Details of the Association's programme of activities for the following financial year, together with estimates of income and expenditure, should be submitted for approval by the Board of Trade by 1st November in each year. The Association will at the same time submit to the Board of Trade revised estimates for the current financial year showing the balance expected to be in hand at 31st March.
4. On the revenue side, the estimates should include any receipts expected from sales of publications, contributions from outside sources, etc.
5. On the expenditure side, the estimates should show the division between different subheads representing the main separate objects of the Association's expenditure and also between items within certain subheads, as shown in the list below. The headings in the list will be revised from time to time to provide for any new services or other changes as appropriate.
6. The estimates should show the division of the total provision required betwen (a) services already in operation in the current year, and (b) new services expected to be undertaken in the ensuing year.
7. Issues to the Association from the Grant in Aid will be regulated by the Board of Trade according to the Association's cash requirements and the need for a reasonable working balance at the end of the financial year.
8. Savings on any one of the subheads of the Association's estimates may not be applied towards excesses on other subheads without the prior approval of the Board of Trade.
9. Prior approval by the Board of Trade is also necessary at any time for:—

(a) expenditure on a new service not falling within an existing subhead;
(b) any expansion of the Association's work which would involve a considerable addition to expenditure in future years;
(c) any proposal involving a point of financial principle;
(d) any long-term commitments.

10. With regard to expenditure on staff, Civil Service standards of remuneration and conditions of service should broadly be observed, and, in the case of higher appointments (attracting salaries of more than £1,500 a year) under the Association, the Board of Trade will expect their prior sanction to be sought to the complements and scales of remuneration.
11. Any superannuation scheme which the Association might wish to establish for its employees, or any proposed amendment to an existing scheme, should be submitted to the Board of Trade for prior approval.
12. The Association shall transmit to the Board of Trade a statement of their accounts for the financial year last completed, in such form as the Board may direct, as soon as their accounts for the year have been audited,

together with a copy of any report made by the auditors on the accounts. The Association shall also transmit to the Board, as soon as may be after the end of the financial year, an account of the receipts and payments of the Association during that year, and showing against each item the corresponding provision made in the Association's estimates for the year.
13. The "write off" of losses (as defined in letters exchanged between the Board of Trade and the Association), and the making of ex gratia and compensation payments shall require the prior approval of the Board of Trade.

LIST

BRITISEI TRAVEL AND HOLIDAYS ASSOCIATION

Arrangement by Subheads of Estimated Expenditure and Receipts

EXPENDITURE

Subhead

A. Wages, Salaries and Pensions
B. Office Expenses

(1) Accommodation Charges
(2) Other Office Expenses

C. Travelling Expenses

(1) Home
(2) Overseas

D. Entertaining
E. Capital Expenditure
F. Tourist and Holiday Development
G. Film Production
H. General Publicity

(1) Literature—General
(2) "Coming Events"
(3) Distribution
(4) World Press Publicity
(5) Co-operative Publicity Promotion Schemes

I. Exhibitions and Displays Overseas
J. Expenditure in U.S.A.

(1) Press Advertising
(2) Public Relations
(3) Offices

K. European Travel Commission—U.S. Publicity Campaign
L. Expenditure in Canada

(1) Press Advertising and Public Relations
(2) Office

M. Expenditure in Western Europe

(1) Advertising and Public Relations
(2) Offices

N. Expenditure in Latin America
Advertising and Public Relations

O. Expenditure in South Africa
Advertising and Public Relations

P. Expenditure in Australia and New Zealand
Advertising and Public Relations

RECEIPTS

Non-Government Revenue

(1) Subscriptions and Donations
(2) Miscellaneous Receipts.

Factories, Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the President of the Board of Trade how many Government-owned and privately-owned factories in Wales are at present vacant or likely


to be vacant; and what steps are being taken to bring new industries to them.

Sir D. Eccles: There are 13 Government-owned factories in Wales which are, or are likely to become, vacant. Two of these are being re-let, and it is hoped that a third will be sold shortly. Every effort is being made to bring the others, and also such privately-owned factories as are known to the Board of Trade, to the attention of suitable firms.

Artificial Limbs

Mr. Jay: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware of increasing monopoly tendencies in the manufacture of artificial limbs; and whether he will refer the industry for examination to the Monopolies Commission.

Sir D. Eccles: I am aware of the recent developments in this industry to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. I understand that nearly all the output is sold to the Ministry of Health, which keeps a close watch on prices. In these circumstances, I do not consider that a reference to the Monopolies Commission is needed.

Lancashire Cotton Industry

Mr. Hale: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement about Government plans for the Lancashire cotton industry.

Sir D. Eccles: I fully realise the anxieties of Lancashire, but there is nothing which I can add today to the statement which I made in the debate on the cotton industry on 30th June.

Mr. Hale: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say, as the Prime Minister said a day or two ago, that the Government do not intend to do anything about it? If so, would he make that clear and let us set about the task of trying to save what was once Britain's greatest export industry?

Sir D. Eccles: We do not accept that we are not doing anything. On the contrary, we are doing all we can to bring about these voluntary agreements.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a further statement on the proposed Summit Conference.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Prime Minister if he will name the countries proposing to take part in the summit talks.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Prime Minister if he will urge at the summit talks that a plebiscite of the inhabitants of Jordan be held under the auspices of the United Nations to discover whether or not they desire to enter the Arab Federation.

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister whether he will propose, at the Summit Conference, the establishment of an international oil authority under the United Nations which would supervise the operations of the oil industry in the Middle East in the interests of the producing and consuming countries.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Prime Minister if he will now propose to Mr. Khrushchev a date and place for a summit meeting.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I shall be making a statement on this subject, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, at the end of Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS AND DISARMAMENT

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the progress made at the Geneva Conference on detecting nuclear test explosions.

The Prime Minister: It would not be right for me to go beyond what has appeared in the agreed communiqués. These show that the experts have studied and drawn up draft summary conclusions on acoustic, seismic, radioactive and electro-magnetic methods of detection of nuclear tests. The detection of high altitude nuclear test explosions has also been studied. The Conference is continuing with its work as expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Allaun: In view of the Prime Minister's reply and of reports that the scientists have reached almost complete agreement, both on their ability to detect all tests and on the means of doing so, does the right hon. Gentleman not feel that this would be a subject on which agreement could and should be obtained


at the summit talks? Does he not feel how deep is the longing among people to take this first step away from the abyss?

The Prime Minister: As I understand it, quite satisfactory progress has been made by the scientists at Geneva, and we are hoping to have their full report, which I am sure will be a valuable contribution to the study of the problem.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: May we hope that the full report will be published when it is finished?

The Prime Minister: I do not suppose that that will rest entirely with us, but we should certainly be in favour of that.

Mr. Albu: asked the Prime Minister what current research into methods of inspection of nuclear disarmament is being conducted in the departments concerned; and whether, in the course of such research, he will take into consideration the Report on Inspection for Disarmament prepared by the Institute of War and Peace Studies at Columbia University of which details have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Edmonton.

The Prime Minister: Methods for the inspection and control of possible nuclear disarmament measures are under intensive review by the Departments concerned, but it would not be in the public interest to disclose details. As regards detection of nuclear tests, a great deal of information based on current research is being used in the Geneva talks. Account is taken of suggestions from many quarters, and we already knew of the existence of this study.

Mr. Albu: Will not the Prime Minister agree that, according to preliminary reports which have appeared in the Press, this study by a number of completely independent scientists is probably extremely valuable, and, in particular, may not the attention given to the political aspects of inspection and disarmament be of great value?

The Prime Minister: I, like the hon. Gentleman, read an article in the Observer on this subject last Sunday. I am quite sure that this particular study will be a valuable addition to other contributions on the same matter.

MIDDLE EAST (MEETING OF HEADS OF GOVERNMENT)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement regarding the arrangements for a high level meeting to discuss the Middle East.
The House will realise that not only do we have to consider our own decisions in these matters, but we have to try to have the maximum possible consultation with our Allies and with other Commonwealth Governments. This necessarily means some delay between the receipt of a letter from Mr. Khrushchev and our reply.
On this particular occasion, I have had to weigh this consideration together with the natural wish of the House of Commons to be informed as to the character of our reply before they adjourn. Although, therefore, our own conclusions had, in fact, been reached yesterday, I have thought it right to accept the short delay inevitable in making our consultations not merely a perfunctory exercise, but a reality.
There is one other consideration which I have tried to bear in mind. I feel that it is courteous, as far as possible, to keep to the rule of not publishing the reply to a letter until it has been delivered. For this reason, I have arranged that our reply should be delivered to the Russian Government at 3 o'clock our time this afternoon. In view, however, of the forthcoming adjournment of the House I propose, with your permission, to read my reply and thus to make it fully available to Members before the adjournment.

Following is the text of the message:
I have received your letter of July 28.
I will not reply to its many accusations against Allied policy in the Middle East. None of these has any foundation in fact.
In my letter of July 22, I proposed a special meeting of the Security Council to be attended by Heads of Government. On July 26, I elaborated this proposal. I said that I was glad that it was acceptable to you and I suggested that the necessary arrangements should at once be made through the Permanent Representatives of Members of the Security Council. I hope that, on reflection, you will agree that this is the best course; I am encouraged in this hope by the passage in your last letter where you call for a return to my


original proposal. From this proposal I have never departed.
In addition to meetings of the whole Council under Article 28, it would, of course, be possible to arrange less formal meetings of Heads of Government on the questions which the Security Council is considering. The procedure would thus be flexible and should promote the chances of making progress.
As I said in my message of July 22, it would not be our intention that any resolutions should be put forward at this special meeting of the Security Council unless they arose out of previous agreement.
Of course, this meeting would not preclude the holding of the Summit meeting for which we have been working for some time.
I am now instructing the United Kingdom Permanent Representative at the United Nations to propose to the President of the Security Council a special meeting to take place under Article 28 on August 12. Meanwhile, the Permanent Representatives should discuss arrangements for the special meeting, and decide where it will take place. If this meeting is agreed I shall be there on August 12; I hope you will be there, too. So far as I am concerned New York, Geneva, or any other place generally agreeable will do.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is the desire of my right hon. and hon. Friends that arrangements should be made as speedily as possible for the Summit Conference. We therefore warmly welcome and support the proposal that 12th August should be fixed and agreed now. I am glad to notice that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he is willing to go to either New York or Geneva, or anywhere else which is agreeable—[An HON. MEMBER: "Moscow."]—including Moscow. Could the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the American Government are also willing to have the conference in either Geneva or New York?
Further, it seems to me enormously important that there should not be any unnecessary delay through the discussions of the Permanent Representatives on the Security Council. It is important to convince Mr. Khrushchev that there is no intention that there shall be any delay. I would, therefore, ask the Prime Minister whether it is his intention, when he speaks of the arrangements for the special meeting being discussed by the Permanent Representatives, that they should consider, for instance, the question of the agenda of the conference and who should be invited to it, or whether, as I very much hope is the case, it is his view that the question of the agenda and of those who should be present should be left to the Summit Conference itself to decide.

The Prime Minister: The reply of the United States Government has not yet been published, I think, but I have no reason to suppose that the President would not be willing to go to either Geneva or New York.
In reply to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, I agree; we must see how we get on. I do not want the meeting to get confused and delayed by discussing anything except to have the meeting and when and where to have it. But, of course, if progress can be made about some other matters, it would be a mistake not to make that progress. That should be taken as it goes.

Mr. Gaitskell: There is no question of insisting that the meeting of the Permanent Representatives on the Security Council must first decide the agenda or who shall be present at the conference itself?

The Prime Minister: I think it is perfectly clear that this meeting will come about only if everybody is agreed. We certainly do not want to interpose anything which would make it more difficult to reach agreement.

Mr. A. Henderson: In view of the apparent differences between the three Western Governments over the arrangements for the conference, could the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the three Governments will go into the conference in agreement on the broad lines of a constructive Middle East settlement?

The Prime Minister: I think that at this stage we have to consider calling the conference. We then have to use our time to the best of our ability to produce constructive policies to put before the conference. Although there has been some difference between the three Western Powers about the method and place of the conference, I do not think that we ought to put too much weight on that. In almost every one of Mr. Khrushchev's letters there has been complete face-about of what he said before.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In view of the difficulty in getting this conference going, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is aware that millions of people will think it a great personal triumph if he can bring the Americans and Russians together at


the highest level? Will he further state that it will be the Government's policy at the summit talks, if they are held, to maintain the independence and integrity of all Middle Eastern States, including Israel?

The Prime Minister: The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is, "Yes, Sir". In answer to the first part, I would say that Lord Palmerston once observed that it was not given to men, still less to party leaders, to please everybody. Having obtained some degree of that unusual felicity, I should like to leave the matter there.

Mr. Stonehouse: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that there is a general hope that he will be successful in persuading the great Powers to meet. I should also like him to look at Question No. 49 and to ask him whether, in view of the great need to establish long-term stability in the oil industry in the Middle East, he would try to reach general agreement on the question of the establishment of an international oil authority?

The Prime Minister: I should have answered that. Of course, I will consider all questions which are put before us with a view to reaching an agreed conclusion. Perhaps I may add this, that I think we have probably got to try to got some short-term arrangements, but we ought not to rule out—indeed, we ought to be thinking specially of—long-term arrangements. One of the reasons why I think that this conference, if it meets, is so much better arranged within the general framework of the United Nations is that it makes it much easier to proceed from one point to another. What we all must face, because our people face it, is the fact that we do not want a conference which lasts a few days, on which high hopes are built, and which then collapses completely. If we keep it in this framework it is easier to build up, perhaps set up a committee, and go further and continue the work.

Mr. S. Silverman: It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not say that on an earlier occasion.

Mr. Royle: In all the correspondence we have seen London has not been mentioned as a possible venue. Would it not be a fine gesture if we made it clear

that we are quite prepared to suggest holding the Summit Conference in our capital city?

The Prime Minister: It is always very agreeable to have a conference in London, but in the United Nations establishment in New York there are all the facilities, communications, for instance, which are very important in these matters, and there is what one may call the European branch of those facilities, which are very important in the work of a conference, established in Geneva. I should think that that really is better than trying to improvise arrangements, which need a good deal of working out if the conference is to take place quickly.

Mr. Paget: The personal triumph which has been ascribed to the Prime Minister, could he tell us over whom it is—the Americans or the Conservative Party?

The Prime Minister: Now the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his usual röle, is trying to detract from my felicity.

STATE OPENING OF PARLIAMENT (TELEVISING)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will now make a statement on the televising of the State opening of Parliament.
Her Majesty's Government have been considering requests that facilities should be granted this year for televising this ceremony. They have decided in principle that such facilities should be granted, and the Queen has been graciously pleased to give her consent.
To avoid undue disturbance, the facilities will be given only to one operator. The British Broadcasting Corporation will prepare the broadcast, but it will make the results available to the Independent Television Authority.
The necessary arrangements will now be concerted with the Lord Great Chamberlain. It is intended that inside the Palace of Westminster the television should be confined to the Royal Gallery and the House of Lords Chamber.
I should like to make it clear that the Government regard this ceremony as a State occasion, quite distinct from the


day-to-day work of Parliament, and that they have no intention of proposing that facilities for the televising of those day-to-day proceedings should be allowed.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Government were good enough to consult my right hon. and hon. Friends on this proposal, and we conveyed to them that we supported it. We did so because, although there would be circumstances in which the televising of Parliamentary affairs might seriously interfere with the spirit and the nature of our proceedings here, evidently this is not the case with the State opening of Parliament. We believe that there is a strong public demand for this, and I am glad, therefore, that the Government have reached this decision.
There is, however, one point which, I feel, I must raise. I think that we would all feel strongly that in no circumstances should the Crown become involved in party politics. There is, perhaps, some danger that the sight of Her Majesty reading the Gracious Speech—and this would apply whichever party was in power—might be misleading. I would, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he would ensure that the B.B.C. commentary makes the constitutional position abundantly clear in the broadcasting of those proceedings.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of that point, but I think that this gives opportunity for removing any misapprehension which may exist. After all, after the opening of Parliament millions of people see a political programme, as it often is, under the heading of the Queen's Speech. This broadcast gives an opportunity for the commentator, who, no doubt, will take some part in it, to explain very clearly to all the listeners exactly the constitutional position. I think that this is an opportunity to describe, no doubt as part of the description of the whole ceremony, the precise constitutional significance. I think that very important, and I will try to ensure that this is done.
Apart from that, it will give great satisfaction to millions of Her Majesty's loyal subjects to see this ceremony. We have sometimes had doubts about the broadcasting of similar ceremonies in the past, but it has turned out that the people have responded with delight and pleasure at being able to take part in

their own homes in ceremonies which, hitherto, only a very small number of people have been able to see.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is it not clear that by far the greatest effect of the visual transmission of this ancient ceremony is obtainable in the Dominions and in foreign countries, and, that being so, is it out of the question that a colour film should be made of the ceremony at the same time?

The Prime Minister: In Canada recently the opening of Parliament by the Queen was televised. There are difficulties about a colour film, of which I may say just this, that at present the intensity of the light and the heat is something more than we ought, I think, to ask at this stage.

Mr. G. Jeger: Will the Prime Minister exercise some control over the sort of advertisements, commercial advertisements, distasteful advertising, which might, on I.T.A., accompany and even perhaps interrupt the televising of the ceremony?

The Prime Minister: I understand that that matter has been thought of and will be taken care of.

Mr. Leather: Is my right hon. Friend aware that among those who have been anxious that this ceremony should be televised there is no support whatever for this thin end of the wedge idea for any further incursion by television into the ceremonies and proceedings of this House?

The Prime Minister: I am well aware of that. That is why I said at the end of my statement that the Government have no intention of making any proposal of that kind.

Mr. Hale: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that if he could arrange for a flash of his supporters, including, for example, the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), listening to the Gracious Speech, it might be possible for the community to have a fair example of the effect and importance and relevance of the speech to the community?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is introducing into this decision—which, I think, is generally accepted by


the House—to give people the opportunity of seeing a great State ceremony, in which Her Majesty plays the central part, just those very points which I should have thought would have been distasteful to the House as a whole.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Prime Minister assure us that there will be the Gracious Speech and not a General Election?

The Prime Minister: Were it not for dangerous precedent—and I do not see an actual descendant here—I should be inclined to say, "Wait and see."

Mr. Ross: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the continued existence of another place is a matter of controversy, and that this broadcast will tend to give to it a degree of importance which not everyone attaches to it. Would it not be a very good idea to leave the television cameras there and to televise the House of Lords in action about a fortnight later?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has said that the existence or composition of the House of Lords is a matter of controversy. What is not, I hope, a matter of controversy is the central position of the Crown in our Parliamentary life.

MALTA

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): I rise to make a statement on Malta.
My discussions with the Governor of Malta have covered a number of problems and I am circulating details in the OFFICIAL REPORT. They have had as their aim the restoration in Malta of the economic and political conditions which would facilitate a resumption of stable and responsible government.
On the economic side, the future of the dockyard has, naturally, taken first place. As the House knows, the use of Malta for naval repair work will decline after 1960. Her Majesty's Government have accordingly decided that the naval dockyard should be converted to a commercial yard and transferred to a commercial ship-repairing firm.
I am very glad to say that preliminary negotiations have been concluded with

Messrs. C. H. Bailey, of South Wales and, subject to the completion of a satisfactory agreement, this firm will form a company registered in Malta to take over the dockyard on long lease. The company will start immediately its preparations for taking over the yard and it is planned that it should assume responsibility some time in 1959.
The cost of converting and re-equipping the yard will be heavy. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to contribute very substantially towards the capital cost of the new enterprise which is estimated at about £5½ million. Messrs. Bailey's, in association with the Colonial Development Corporation and Maltese interests, will provide £¾ million of equity capital.
Her Majesty's Government will make available the balance of £4¾ million partly in the form of a debenture and partly as a special grant. The return on the grant would depend upon the prosperity of the enterprise. The House will be given full information when the negotiations with the firm have been completed.
The people of Malta have already been assured that there will be enough Admiralty work in the dockyard to maintain about the present level of activity until the end of 1960. Naval work will then decline, but there will be some warship repairs for at least a number of years thereafter and the naval base will remain, though on a somewhat reduced scale. Commercial work will, meanwhile, be building up and secondary industries will be established.
Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that in these various ways the prospects of maintaining employment after 1960 are good. The firm's plan is to make such arrangements as will enable the employment to be offered on comparable terms to most of those engaged on naval ship-repair work for the Admiralty.
The Governor is also making plans to push ahead with the diversification of the economy, which Her Majesty's Government regard as of the highest importance as a means of providing further opportunities for productive employment. Details will be given in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
On the constitutional side, I have been discussing with the Governor how a start can be made towards the return of responsible government. This presents difficulties because of the events which led


up to and followed the resignation of Mr. Mintoff's Government, and particularly because of the conflicting positions taken up by the Maltese political parties on whether new elections should be held under the 1947 Constitution.
The Governor and I have agreed that the next step must be to try to reach an agreed solution in discussion with the Maltese political parties and Her Majesty's Government therefore propose to invite the parties to talks in November on Malta's future constitutional arrangements. In the meantime, the Governor is reviewing the state of public order in Malta to see how far the present restrictions can be relaxed or lifted.

Mr. Callaghan: It is, of course, a very serious decision that the Government have reached to close the naval dockyard, because that is, in effect, what this means. I think that they have made a most praiseworthy start in getting a well-known and reputable firm like Bailey's to enter into discussions with a view to taking over the yard, but I hope that the Colonial Secretary will not mind my saying that part of this statement sounds a little optimistic. Is there any guarantee of the level of employment that Bailey's may be able to sustain? It depends on commercial enterprise. Has the right hon. Gentleman had any discussion with Bailey's about the expected level of employment? If Bailey's fail, it will be catastrophic to the island's economy. Every effort, therefore, must be made to ensure that it succeeds.
This leads me to my second point. If Bailey's is to succeed, there must be stable political conditions. May I ask the Colonial Secretary why this conference is not taking place until November? We understand the pressure on the Colonial Office, but ought he not to consider bringing the conference forward to September and having at least preliminary discussions then? Will he, before the conference takes place, consider very seriously the possibility of relaxing the emergency regulations under which the island is operating at present?
I assure the right hon Gentleman that everyone appreciates that in the present context the economic future of the island must be dependent upon the success of whatever commercial venture

goes there. May I ask the Government, apart from financial help, what other help in the way of orders and that sort of thing they hope to give to any commercial firm that is to take over and, we trust, will succeed in the Malta dockyard?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: On the constitutional question, I do not believe that it would be practicable to hold the conference before November. As I think the hon. Member knows, for the latter part of September and a good part of October I shall be heavily engaged in the Nigerian conference and there is a great deal of preliminary work, also, which will have to be done before we can have profitable talks with the Maltese political parties. All our efforts in the last few months have been devoted in trying to get something established on the employment side, and I believe that to be of the first importance. No one, of course, can guarantee future levels of employment, but I believe that I can say with complete truth that the prospects in Malta are good.
Until the end of 1960, the Admiralty work should ensure that there will not be discharges because of redundancy. After 1960, Bailey's intend to keep up employment in Malta by establishing light industries in the dockyards, in addition to commercial shipping repair works and Admiralty work that will come to them. Also, the naval base will remain, although there will be some gradual reduction in numbers. I believe that this development should prevent any serious unemployment resulting from the decline in naval requirements, but success will largely depend on the co-operation of the Maltese during the next few years when the conversion of the dockyard into a competitive commercial ship repairing establishment is being carried out.
This is no question whatever of closing the dockyard. It is a question of stopping that undue and alarming reliance on Admiralty work which has characterised the economic life of Malta for far too long, and by transferring responsibility in the dockyard to commercial firms and guaranteeing them chances in the future which they would not have if they relied exclusively on inevitably declining naval orders.

Mr. John Hall: Was the delegation representing Malta dockyard employees


which was at the Admiralty this week consulted about the plans and, if so, did it endorse them?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The delegation came over and my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty saw it, and I had the pleasure of seeing the members of it as well. The delegation was given, in confidence, a general indication of Her Majesty's Government's plans and there was a very useful discussion of the problems that might arise in connection with employment and labour relations.
Naturally, the delegation could not be given all the information which I have given to the House. Quite apart from the question of Parliamentary Privilege, negotiations with Bailey's had not been completed. The delegation was, therefore, neither asked to, nor could it, endorse the plan which I have outlined. There will be, of course, consultation with representatives of industrial and non-industrial staffs on those matters in which they are affected when the detailed plans for the transfer of the yard are being worked out.

Mr. Dugdale: The right hon. Gentleman said that a private firm was taking over the dockyard. He also said that, at the same time, the Colonial Development Corporation would be associated with it. To what extent? Will the Corporation be in partnership, or will it simply have debenture shares?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Part of the equity holding will be held by the Colonial Development Corporation. I am also very glad to say that it looks as if there will be Maltese participation as well. The family of Cassar Tarragani, which is well known on both sides of the House, of the National Bank of Malta, and Messrs. Pace, the banking agents in Malta, have undertaken, subject to the conclusion of a satisfactory agreement, to be associated with the formation of the company in Malta. Arrangements will also be made to enable anybody in Malta who wishes to buy shares in the company to do so from the batch allocated to the people of the island but, of course, much the largest financial stake is represented by the very substantial sum which Her Majesty's Government are providing.

Mr. Wall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement will be received with pleasure by all friends of Malta,

since it provides for the economic future of the island? May I ask him whether, in view of the large amount of money which is being spent on converting the dockyard to civilian use, the project for the civil harbour, which is of great importance to the future of Malta, will also go ahead?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I know that high hopes are built on that project and construction will begin this year. This plan, far from harming that one, ought to facilitate it.

Mr. C. R. Hobson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any guarantee has been given to Messrs. Bailey, with regard to the dockyard, that British ships registered in Malta, and the increasing numbers that have been registered in Malta under flags of convenience, are to be repaired in the dockyard by Bailey's?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: No guarantee has been given, but we have every reason to believe that a lot of work will come along. No less than 40 ships in ballast pass Malta, or within five miles of it, every day. It is on the great Mediterranean sea route. The skill of the workmen is well known, and I believe that with neighbouring yards in the area, as they are, overloaded with work, the prospects are really good for Malta.

Sir G. Nicholson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Malta Dockyard comprises many buildings which are of great historic interest and architectural beauty? As far as possible, will it be ensured that they are preserved, so that the extraordinarily beautiful character of the town is not impaired?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. We will do our best to ensure that any new world projects do not spoil the old.

Mr. Callaghan: May I press the Colonial Secretary on the date of the conference? In view of the fact that the island is living under emergency regulations, will he consider whether at least some preliminary steps can be taken early in September for discussions with the Maltese political parties? Even if the right hon. Gentleman himself cannot do that, there are other Ministers at the Colonial Office who could perhaps undertake it. It is very important that Bailey's should get off to a good start. Therefore, we ought to get the political situation right as quickly as we can.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir, but I still think that the programme we have outlined is the one most likely to get the commercial plans started in a proper atmosphere, and to enable us to have the constitutional talks at the most convenient moment. Needless to say, in the interval I am always glad to correspond with, or to see, any of our many friends of all political parties in Malta.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: May I ask for a little more information about the proposed naval base? Are we to understand that it will be a repairing base, or can we take it that in future any naval work that is to be done will be done by contract with the new dockyard and not, as it were, in competition with it?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: By contract, Sir.

Mr. J. Hynd: May I ask the Minister for some further details about the financial aspect of this matter? What is the value of the public assets that are being handed over to this company, if any? What is the company paying for them? What is the rate of interest on the debentures which the Government are taking over and what will be the conditions under which Government work will be done by the firm in the dockyard later?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will read the much fuller statement which will appear in HANSARD tomorrow morning. I will give further information as soon as final agreement with the company has been reached. I would point out that the dockyard, though of value as it is now to the Admiralty, is not in a form that would enable a commercial firm to take full advantage of it. A vast sum of money has to be spent on it and we have undertaken, as I have said, to provide many millions of pounds ourselves. It would be a great mistake, I think, to give the impression that something of great value for commercial operation was being handed over virtually for nothing.

Mr. Gower: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the progressive, enlightened and go-ahead policies of Messrs. C. H. Bailey Ltd. have been very much appreciated in several of the South Wales ports since the war? Is he further aware that the firm is very well equipped to undertake this work?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that the struggle of the people of Malta, particularly the 13,000 empoyed in the dockyard, is to prevent the island becoming a distressed area? Is he further aware that a commercial undertaking which considered taking over the dockyard recently stated that it could employ only 4,000 men out of the 13,000 now employed? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the men who are not employed by the dockyard will be provided for in some way similar to our unemployment insurance?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: If the hon. Gentleman has forgotten about the existence of the naval base and the undertakings in regard to that, and as he has asked about the level of employment, I ask him to read carefully the statement I have made and to read the fuller statement in tomorrow's HANSARD.

Mr. Langford-Holt: My right hon. Friend will be aware that an essential part of the dockyard facilities in Malta is a floating dock, which he did not mention. Is it intended to include that in this operation, or is it to remain under Admiralty control?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: That is still the subject of negotiation.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery), if Bailey's hope to employ 5,000 men, and 6,000 will be employed in the naval base, that will still only bring the total to between 10,000 and 11,000 out of about 13,000. May I therefore ask the Colonial Secretary whether it is his intention to press ahead with diversification of industry in other directions? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am most anxious that there should be no misunderstanding in Malta about this point. It would be very unfortunate if it were thought in Malta that everyone was to be employed. Will the Minister make it clear that there may be a surplus over and above the number employed in the base and in the civilian dockyard, for which Her Majesty's Government propose to make other arrangements by way of a diversification of industry?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I have already given the assurance that the Government


do not think it will be necessary to see the level of employment in the dockyard fall below 12,000. Indeed, they have said that it will not fall below 12,000 up to 1960. That is a fairly good assurance, as far as it goes. Thereafter, I have given the statement as to the level of employment that Messrs. Bailey hope to provide, and a fuller statement will be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is our intention also to proceed with the diversification of the economy of the island, for which substantial funds are available, largely provided from here, and it is our belief that the future of Malta is as secure as anything can be in this uncertain world.

Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us will welcome a large part of his statement today and will particularly wish to congratulate the Governor on the negotiations in which he has been participating for the development of the island?
May I ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the conference of parties is not to take place until November, whether he will very urgently give his attention to the withdrawal of the present restrictions on liberty in Malta; as, for example, the regulation which does not allow 10 people to meet in public? If we are to solve this problem, is it not desirable to remove those regulations at once?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, Sir. I am sure we all endorse the tribute which the hon. Gentleman has paid to the Governor. The Governor, who will enjoy that tribute, told me that the first thing he would do when he got back to Malta yesterday would be to apply his mind to the emergency regulations.

Mr. Drayson: While the House is, naturally, concerned about the level of employment in Malta, we have a problem of unemployment in Lancashire and Yorkshire, so can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that it is not the intention of the Government, in their diversification plan, to establish textile industries in Malta which will make further difficulties for Lancashire?

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. I think that Lancashire is rather wide of Malta.

Following are the details:
The Governor has been in London since early June for discussions on Her Majesty's Government's future policy in Malta. These discussions have had as their aim the restoration in Malta of the economic and political conditions which would facilitate a resumption of stable and responsible government.
Priority has, naturally, been given to Malta's economic problems. In the past, the Maltese economy has depended on Services' expenditure; and Her Majesty's Government have recognised that the long-term changes in United Kingdom defence policy, particularly in so far as these affect the requirements of the Royal Navy in Malta, will necessitate major changes in the traditional pattern of the island's economy.
This is not a new problem. It has been the common object of Governments here and in Malta for some time to diversify the Maltese economy and thereby to reduce dependence on the Services. This was one of the aims of policy in the joint statement issued by Her Majesty's Government and the Maltese party leaders in 1955.
Her Majesty's Government have always held to this aim and when changes in defence policy looked like causing major changes in the pattern of Services employment in Malta they stressed their readiness to work out remedial measures with the late Maltese Government. Earlier this year, Her Majesty's Government also offered the late Maltese Government to set up a working party to devise plans to deal with the problems that might arise if there should be substantial
unemployment after 1960 owing to changes in defence policy. This offer was
turned down by Mr. Mintoff.
The dockyard has for generations been the industrial core of Malta and it is an economic asset which should be used to the full. It will no longer be possible to keep it in being as a naval yard, and it would offer good prospects, if converted, for commercial ship-repairing. Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, decided that the yard should be transferred to a private ship-repairing firm. The continued use of the dockyard in this new rôle will be a major step in the direction of diversifying the Maltese economy.
Preliminary negotiations have been concluded with Messrs. C. H. Bailey, of South Wales, and, subject to the completion of a satisfactory agreement, this firm will form a company to take over the dockyard on lease during 1959. The intention is that the takeover of the dockyard should be in two phases. During the first phase, which may last for about a year, Messrs. Bailey's will finalise their requirements for converting the yard, study the Admiralty management on the spot, and make the necessary preparations for the assumption of full responsibility. In the second phase, which will start some time in 1959, the firm will take over complete responsibility.
The dockyard is not suitable for commercial work as it stands. It will have to be converted and re-equipped. The total capital cost involved is estimated at about £5½ million. Messrs. Bailey's, in association with the


Colonial Development Corporation and certain Maltese interests—subject to the negotiation of satisfactory agreements—will provide £¾ million. Her Majesty's Government will make available the balance of £4¾ million, partly in the form of a debenture and partly as a special grant on which the Government would look for a return as the enterprise grew in prosperity. It is hoped to arrange for a batch of shares in the new company to be allocated for sale to Maltese people, including dockyard employees, who wish to become shareholders. Further information will be given to the House on these arrangements when detailed negotiations with the firm have been completed.
Her Majesty's Government recognise the special difficulties of launching this new enterprise, and the need for the most careful planning during the transition period. They have, therefore, welcomed an approach which Messrs. Bailey's have made to Vice-Admiral Sir Gordon Hubback to become the Managing Director of the company which is being formed to take over the dockyard.
Admiral Hubback was Commodore Superintendent at Malta, and is now the member of the Board of Admiralty who deals with the naval dockyard. He has unrivalled knowledge and experience in this field. The Admiralty is, naturally, most reluctant to let Admiral Hubback go, but fully appreciate the importance of the Malta task, and I am, therefore, deeply grateful to my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty for having agreed to release Admiral Hubback from his present duties for this purpose in a few months' time.
There will be enough work to keep the dockyard going at about the present level of activity until the end of 1960. Over this period commercial work including secondary industries will be built up. Thereafter, naval work will decline. The naval base will remain, though there will be some gradual reduction in its size. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that this transition will not lead to widespread unemployment and distress in Malta. The plan is to make such arrangements as will enable employment to be offered in comparable conditions to most of those engaged on naval ship-repair work for the Admiralty, and every effort will be made to mitigate individual hardship and to ensure that the transfer is carried out as smoothly as possible.
The conversion of the dockyard alone is, however, not enough. The whole Maltese economy must be developed, and to that end

a number of other steps are being taken now to attract industry to Malta and to develop its natural attractions. The construction of a new civil harbour, which should be of immense commercial benefit to the island, will be begun this year. The industrial estate begun by the late Maltese Government will be further developed and as a third major step an Aids to Industry Bill will shortly be enacted. Her Majesty's Government have also approved the Governor's new plans for expanding the island's tourist industry, which could become one of Malta's major assets.
Hitherto, there has been no overall development plan for Malta. This is now being remedied. Her Majesty's Government have already made known their readiness to assist Malta by substantial capital grants towards an agreed plan which, among other things, aims at improving the standards of living of the Maltese people. They will also assist in balancing the budget on recurrent account so as to maintain and raise the standard of educacation and other social services. The ways in which practical effect can best be given to this undertaking can be decided when there is an agreed development plan.
With all these prospects, Malta's economic course promises to set fair. The Maltese people will have to face competition from industry in neighbouring countries, but, provided the commercial work done in the dock-yard and the products of Maltese industry remain competitive, the Maltese people need not fear for their future.
The discussions with the Governor have also covered constitutional matters. Since the disturbances at the end of April the situation has become sufficiently tranquil to justify an early review by the Governor of the present restrictions on political activity. This he proposes to undertake as soon as he returns. The return to normal parliamentary government is, however, more difficult because of the conflicting views held by the political parties in Malta on the 1947 Constitution. Furthermore, Her Majesty's Government have an obligation to protect individual members of the public service against victimisation for their loyalty and devotion to duty. Her Majesty's Government have, therefore, decided that the best step would be to try and reach an agreed solution to the constitutional problem in discussion with the Maltese political parties. They therefore propose to invite the parties to join them in November in discussions on Malta's future constitutional arrangements.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Thursday, 23rd October, at Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

4.8 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I do not propose to keep the House long, but I would be failing in my duty badly if I allowed this opportunity to pass without registering my protest at the suggestion that we should leave Westminster for so long a period when there are vital issues which, I believe, ought to be commanding our attention.
I will not deal with the broad issue of foreign affairs, or with the question of unemployment, serious as it is in South Wales, where, in Cardiff alone, 4,000 people have been unemployed for the past six months or more. I think it very serious that we should be going away for this long period during which we shall be unable to bring these cases to the attention of the House. There is, however, another issue to which I want to refer.
Before the House meets again, as one of my hon. Friends reminded us this afternoon, the Rent Act will come into operation, and those people who are to be evicted will have been evicted before we meet again. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Many of them will be, and they cannot appeal under the last relieving Measure which was brought before Parliament. I know now that there will be cases in the City of Cardiff which will give cause for great anxiety before the House meets again.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen will give me credit for knowing my own constituency better than they do. I am speaking from knowledge. It is my custom, every week while the House is sitting, to hold a "surgery" and meet my constituents. I have had a list of cases piled up in which the new Measure that has been passed will not give the relief that is desired. I feel that a long Recess of this character is unjustified and indefensible at a time like this, and that is the main reason for my speaking now.
The second reason is this. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Hon. Members should not tempt me. It is a long time since I

addressed the House, and this is one of those opportunities that I do not like to miss. The other reason is that, for three months, it will be impossible for us to do justice to those of our constituents who are the least privileged of all. I am thinking of the pensioners, and their demand for a better and more adequate allowance on which to live. They will be moving into the winter by the time we return, and any Bill that may be introduced then to relieve the suffering of these old folk could not possibly be applied until the following spring, if any of our previous experiences are a guide.
For these reasons, I hope that the House will not carry the Motion that we adjourn until 23rd October.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I have no desire to detain the House unduly long on this Motion, or to obstruct the important debate on unemployment in Wales which is to follow. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be quite wrong for us to depart for such a long period without a few remarks from the official Opposition on the present situation. I also wish to put one or two questions to the Government, and to seek certain assurances from them.
I do not think that it will be denied by anybody that we are going into this Recess at a time when, in many different parts of the world, there are extremely disturbed conditions, and, in consequence, very serious anxieties both here and in other countries. We have our own troubles as well. I have mentioned already the coming debate on Welsh unemployment, but I think that there is widespread anxiety that unemployment generally may possibly increase during the coming months in the country as a whole. The visit of the T.U.C. to the Chancellor of the Exchequer shows that that possibility is certainly in their minds.
We are glad that the President of the Board of Trade has decided to follow certain policies which we have long recommended, and that he is willing to reintroduce suitable controls to guide the movement of industry into appropriate areas. We hope that the Government will also follow an expansionist policy for taking up the slack which, I am very much afraid, will otherwise develop.
But I am not as much concerned, in the few remarks that I want to make, with


the home situation, because I know that other hon. Members will speak on it, as I am about the situation abroad. I will begin by drawing the attention of the House to the situation in Cyprus, about which we are exceedingly disturbed. Perhaps I could take this opportunity of thanking the Prime Minister for following up a suggestion of mine at Question Time the other day that there should be a joint appeal by the three Prime Ministers—the right hon. Gentleman himself and the Greek and Turkish Prime Ministers—to end violence. I hope that that will be successful.
I should also like to ask the Government whether, before we go into Recess, they will give an assurance that everything possible through N.A.T.O. will be done—[Interruption.] I am asking the Government, not the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke); he is not, at the moment, in the Government.
I am asking for an assurance that everything possible through N.A.T.O. will be done to bring the utmost pressure to bear on both the Greek and Turkish Governments to do all they can to stop violence in Cyprus. I feel that, as they are both Allies of ours in N.A.T.O., it would not be very difficult to persuade them to behave in a manner less dangerous to the alliance as a whole in the Eastern Mediterranean.
Then there is the matter of Northern Rhodesia. We appreciate very much, Mr. Speaker, your kindness in allowing that matter to be raised tomorrow. It will give my right hon. and hon. Friends an opportunity of saying what they feel about the proposed action of the Government in connection with the new franchise. But we cannot forbear from saying that it might well be that, during the course of this Recess, when Parliament is not sitting, what would amount to an irrevocable decision will be taken, which could have very serious consequences not only for Northern Rhodesia, but for the whole of East and Central Africa.
Of course, it is particularly with the Middle East that we are most concerned today. I have no desire, and indeed it would be quite wrong for me, to attempt to repeat the discussions which took place in this House in the last fortnight, but I must say that everything that has happened since these debates seems to me to

confirm, broadly speaking, the rightness of the point of view expressed from these benches. Let us take Iraq, to start with. It is very gratifying to find that the Iraqi Government—

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. Is it in order for the right hon. Gentleman to introduce last-minute, last-shot, partisan, political points on foreign affairs questions in a debate which is strictly related to the Adjournment of the House? Short reasons for objections have always been admitted and may be adduced, but this has never been the occasion for lengthy speeches on these aspects of foreign affairs, which, I am sure, the Government are not prepared to answer at this stage, and which, if persisted in, will only invite further speeches from hon. Members on this side of the House in contradiction.

Mr. Speaker: I have frequently ruled in the past on these debates that hon. Members are entitled to argue that, because of certain circumstances surrounding the country, it would be unwise to adjourn for a prolonged Recess. What I have always said is that that does not really mean an opportunity to go precisely into the merits of various policies and problems, but that Members should confine themselves, as I think the right hon. Gentleman himself has done hitherto, to arguing that it would be unwise to adjourn.

Mr. Gaitskell: I am much obliged. Mr. Speaker. I have no intention of going at any great length into this matter, or of arguing or re-arguing What was debated a day or two ago. Perhaps the noble Lord would try to contain himself. Sometimes, he takes a view on foreign affairs which is not in accord with that of his right hon. Friends, and what he thinks is partisan may not be quite so partisan to them.
I was saying that the position in Iraq was certainly better than we might have anticipated. The attitude adopted by the new Government there to some extent reassures us. I wish to ask the Government whether it is proposed by Her Majesty's Government to recognise the new Government of Iraq? That is the first step that should be taken to try to re-establish friendly relations with some of the Arab countries.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I think it is quite normal, as those who have been a long time in this House will agree, for people to adduce reasons, but I do not want to disappoint the House if it should imagine that, in fact, I can give a full answer on questions involving the Royal prerogative, the conduct of foreign policy and everything else, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman.
I will do my best to answer the right hon. Gentleman and any others who may speak, and to give the reasons and the mechanism for the recall of Parliament, and so forth, but I do not want to disappoint the House because of the impression that I can transcend what I have always thought to be the normal practice, by giving a full range of policy statements for the Government before the Recess.

Mr. Gaitskell: I do not think that I have asked for a whole range of policy statements. I am bound to say that I think the Opposition would have been very remiss in not putting a question about the recognition of the new Iraqi Government. I would have hoped that the Government would have been able to give an answer; if they cannot, it is too bad. At least, we are entitled to put the question before we agree to this Motion. Apart from the situation in Iraq, our troops are in a very precarious position in Jordan. We should like further information from the Government about their intentions in that matter.
We hope that most of these issues will be cleared up at the Summit Conference and we certainly hope that that conference and the discussions in the Security Council will enable a solution to be found—perhaps the substitution of U.N. troops or observers for British and American forces. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell us anything further on that, I should certainly be grateful to him.
However, we should not delude ourselves about the underlying dangerous situation in that part of the world. We were all gratified to hear of the proposal that the Summit Conference should begin on 12th August and I can only repeat what I said in supplementary questions to the Prime Minister, that I very much hope that Mr. Khrushchev will accept this proposal. Nevertheless, we must face the fact that there may be further delays and

possibly obstruction from one quarter or another. The Summit Conference is not absolutely certain.
That brings me to the particular assurance which I would like to get from the Government. If it should, unfortunately, happen that within a fortnight or three weeks no definite arrangements for the Summit Conference have been made and agreed by all the Powers concerned, so that we are all driven to the conclusion that no conference is likely, then we shall have to consider very seriously whether Parliament should not be recalled. I put that in all seriousness, because it seems to me that if there is no Summit Conference a new situation will have arisen. I cannot say, of course, whether it will be profoundly dangerous, but it certainly could be, and I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, supposing that were to be the case, he will give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that at least they will seriously consider any representations which might be made to them by the Opposition for the recall of the House.
There is the other and more attractive possibility that the Summit Conference does take place and there then remains the question of what its outcome will be. It would be pointless to try to discuss that now, but it may well be that when the Summit Conference is concluded there will be reason for the recall of Parliament. I put it no higher than that. One cannot decide in advance. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind all those possibilities and give us the reasonable assurances for which we are asking before we agree to the Motion.

4.24 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: I fully understand the reasons which made my right hon. Friend so restrained and I fully appreciate what he has said about the possibility of the House being recalled in the event of the Summit Conference not taking place in the very near future. However, I am not as restrained as was my right hon. Friend. The House should be pressing the Government not to rise at a moment like this, and not to rise until we are sure that a Summit Conference will take place.
It is all very well to say, Mr. Speaker, that with your good will the House can be recalled at very short notice, but I should have thought it wise for the House


to remain in session for at least another week, to make sure that the Prime Minister's offer is accepted. I regard it as dangerous that hon. Members should depart at this time.
I know that in similar debates on previous occasions hon. Members have objected to the rising of the House, while at the same time hoping at the bottom of their hearts that their objections would not prevail. However, I am very serious when I say that I believe that we are making a great mistake to permit the House to rise tomorrow while circumstances are so uncertain.
I had hoped that my right hon. Friend's advice to the Opposition would have been to vote against the Adjournment for the Summer Recess at this time. I should have regarded it as my duty to support such a move and to keep the House in session during this very vital week.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. William Ross: There is no doubt that hon. Members have had a very heavy burden of duties and responsibilities in the past months, especially over the past weeks, but the actions which the Government have been taking in our name have laid even heavier responsibilities upon hon. Members in respect of many people. This is, therefore, a singularly inappropriate time to announce to the world that we are leaving this place for three months—admittedly, with the possibility of recall.
Apart from the political aspects of the Middle East situation, we are responsible for many thousands of British citizens who are in Iraq and about whom we have heard scarcely a word in all the recent debates. I wonder how they will feel when they hear on the radio that Parliament is to dissolve for three months—the people in Kirkuk, Bagdad, Basrah and the Persian Gulf.
How do our constituents feel? I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that my constituents are very concerned about Parliament adjourning for so long, in view of the spreading unemployment and the fall in earnings while costs are rising. Unemployment is now causing so much concern to the President of the Board of Trade that he is trying to persuade European countries that they should not do what the British Government have

been doing for the past few years. As a result of Government policy the rent of practically every house in Kilmarnock, privately and publicly owned, is going up.
All these matters make people in my constituency wonder why it is that Parliament should dissolve for so long. I hope that we will be given some very cogent reasons by the Leader of the House to explain why it is absolutely essential that the Recess should be so long. Quite apart from the possibility of the Summit Conference and the new problems which may arise from that, there are the difficulties of the spread of unemployment, the problems of the Middle East and the Mediterranean. The right hon. Gentleman should not hesitate to follow the advice of my right hon. Friend about the recall of Parliament.
We sometimes consider these matters far too narrowly, forgetting the psychological effect all over the world when at a time like this the British Parliament goes away for so long. Problems were never more grave. Never did peace seem to hang so much in the balance, and yet we go away and leave it to the Government to carry on without that day-to-day criticism and prodding which are so essential to the proper working of democracy.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: This date of the Adjournment for the Summer Recess is becoming a sort of obstacle that Ministers are desperately trying to reach over a month of tergiversation and a month of postponements and discussions in order to take decisions planned for several weeks, some of which are likely to be unpopular and all of which are likely to be forgotten at the end of the three months' Adjournment. That is one of the reasons why the threat of the Queen of the Fairies, that
You shall sit if he sees reason,
Through the grouse and salmon season",
becomes less menacing, particularly to those Socialist Members who do not possess salmon rivers or grouse moors.
I do not want to sit during August. I would like a holiday, but I suggest that there are one or two considerations which make this long Adjournment undesirable. We have come to the stage when we should reconsider the whole question of the sittings of Parliament. Every year, for the last six or seven years—indeed,


if the House wants me to make a non-party issue of this I might say that it has happened for the last fifteen years—a whole series of Orders, Statutory Instruments, and so on, is published within a day or two of Parliament rising.
The cotton industry of Lancashire faces the most tragic position it has had to face for a very long time. What has been happening? We had a debate on 3rd June, when the President of the Board of Trade said, "I am trying to negotiate with Hong Kong. I have provisional agreements with India and Pakistan, but it all depends on Hong Kong." The whole emphasis of these discussions has been to say, "Let us get past the deadline date, when Parliament rises. Let us not have to make an announcement which will provoke a further discussion before Parliament rises. Let us shuffle it all off. Let the unemployed of Oldham look for other jobs. Let Lancashire settle down to the fact that Parliament is not sitting, and hope that by October the position will have solved itself in some way or other, or at any rate that the pressure will have ceased."
We are told that Mr. Speaker can recall Parliament at a day or two's notice, but the decision to occupy Jordan was taken between the sitting of Parliament at 10 o'clock one night and the sitting of Parliament at 2.30 p.m. the next day. By the time we had assembled at 2.30 Jordan was being occupied. Without wishing to raise highly controversial matters—and I accept that they should not be raised in this debate—when there is talk about an invitation to the Turks to occupy Iraq we are dealing with a situation in which the recall of Parliament at two or three days' notice provides no remedy and no answer. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is always personally courteous to the House, and to the Prime Minister, who always speaks with courtesy, that we are getting to a situation in which Parliament is being continually flouted; when decisions are announced after they have been made, and when we are confronted invariably with a fait accompli. This is a serious matter.
Serious things have been and are still happening in France. A democratic assembly can be treated merely as an institution which will ratify a decision by a vote or as an institution which has the right to discuss a matter constructively

and effectively. If we forget the important part of democracy, democracy may forget us. That is one of the problems that we face in connection with these long and quite unnecessary adjournments. The right hon. Gentleman has quite properly said that we shall reassemble for one day to prorogue, because we have completed our programme, but that means that unless there is one of these hurried resummonings of Parliament to discuss a special situation we can say not one word about these problems until 28th October.
The public do not understand it. The authority of Parliament is undermined when the public are told that Members are going on holiday. I know that many of us are not; many of us will go on to various spheres of activity, where much hard work must be done, and our constituency work must be continued. But in the eyes of the public we are going on holiday at a time of great crisis. That is one action which undermines the authority of Parliament.
Perhaps I may speak in a lighter vein. This morning I heard on the wireless that the Cabinet had been sitting this morning and was to sit again this afternoon. I have not seen the early evening newspapers and have not yet found out what the Cabinet was discussing, but it is at least relevant to mention that at the time when we are rising the Cabinet is discussing something of such supreme importance that it has to sit twice. The B.B.C. may have been misinformed, or I may have misheard the B.B.C. Then I was told that the Prime Minister was dining with the Archbishop of Canterbury. So long as the Prime Minister discusses ethics, on which he speaks so well, and the Archbishop speaks on politics, which he understands so thoroughly, I do not anticipate any harm from that, but if the reverse process takes place it might be necessary to resummon Parliament at a moment's notice.
All these matters are points that we must keep in mind. I seriously suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, whom I know has the health and welfare of Parliament at heart, that the time has come when instead of staging this sort of discussion for a few minutes at the time of the Adjournment we should consider the whole question of the sittings of the House, and whether something like a


ten or twelve weeks' Adjournment, with the world as it is today, is not gravely impairing the utility and reputation of Parliament.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Peart: I want briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale). I would tell him that the problem of unemployment is not peculiar to Lancashire. I would also tell my Welsh friends—and I do not want to delay their debate—that in Cumberland there is rising unemployment, particularly in the region of Silloth, through the closing down of establishments. Only yesterday the Government announced a Development Area policy—but not in this House. We had it reported in the Press this morning. I know that the news was given in a Written Answer, but there was no possibility of question and answer on the floor of the House. This major statement of Development Area policy was announced by way of a Written Answer.
This is a matter which affects many parts of England and Wales, and particularly my own area, and I would have liked to press this matter by way of question and answer, and also in various other ways that are open to me as a Member. My constituents will say, "Parliament is adjourning for a long period; it is much too long." I, representing a West Cumberland constituency, should have had an opportunity to press these issues before the Minister, on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is why I have great sympathy with the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend.
I believe that Recesses are too long. We should have a much better arrangement about the Summer Recess, and I hope the question will be looked into. Again, we must bear in mind what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said. There is a danger that summit talks may collapse for various reasons, and there is a need for assurances that Parliament will be recalled. There are other great issues, which affect the Middle East. The recognition of Iraq is important. If there is delay in this matter it could prejudice our whole position in the Middle East. These are vital issues, and I should have

thought that it would have been better for Parliament to continue sitting at this time.
We all need a holiday, certainly, but many of us will be doing other political work elsewhere. Despite the burdens placed upon us, we feel that it is right that Parliament should be sitting, so that this Chamber can check the Executive. In a period of crisis the Executive must consult Parliament, and we must have an opportunity of putting forward the points of view of our constituents and ourselves on these major issues which affect peace, and which the whole country is thinking about.

4.40 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): It is quite usual for hon. Members to express their doubts and anxieties and for some of them to express a strong wish to remain almost permanently in session. This occasion has been characterised by sincere contributions by all concerned. Anxieties have been expressed about constituency problems. Apart from some of the usual gems from the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale), I think that he is deeply moved at the idea of having to return to his constituency and to leave us for a while. We shall miss him and he will miss us.
There is a general proposition which we have to consider, namely, the extent to which it is possible for Parliament to continue in session under the very considerable pressure at which we have been working recently. I think that it would be undesirable for Parliament to be permanently in session. It never has been throughout our history. There always have been periods of Recess. It is always possible for the public outside to regard the period of Recess as a complete holiday, but for most hon. Members it is not a holiday.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West was quite right in pointing out that he has no grouse moor to go to, but neither have several other people. On this occasion the Prime Minister is showing a sense of duty by attending an important meeting in a certain place instead of indulging in recreation in another place of a classical character. Times change, and we must change with them, but we


should not change to the extent of altogether altering the relationship of the legislature to the Executive. We must remember that the Executive does not stop work during a Recess.
We must also remember that there is probably no Executive in the world, under any constitution, written or otherwise, which is more constantly in touch with the legislature than the British Government is with the British House of Commons. That means that there must also be period of refreshment on both sides. There must be times for hon. Members to refresh themselves in their constituencies or elsewhere, and for Ministers to refresh themselves in their Departments. I wish to make my speech quite balanced, so I would add a parenthesis by saying that while the House is sitting Ministers often do not spend long enough in their Departments or elsewhere. The Recess enables us to keep an exact balance between the humanity of hon. Members and the humanity of Ministers. It is therefore wise to have a Recess.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) talked about the specially long period, as one or two other hon. Members did, but if we look back over the years from 1952 to 1957, and even further back to the period of the Labour Government in 1949 and 1950 we find that the Recesses have been periods of approximately eighty days. This one will be for a period of approximately eighty-two days. There is therefore nothing unusual in the procedure suggested, either by precedent or otherwise.
There have been occasions, in 1948 and 1949, and once or twice recently, notably in 1956, when the House was recalled, and I want to give my first major assurance to the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, and to the House, by saying that the Government intend to follow the usual practice and to invoke Standing Order No. 112, which I shall shortly read to the House, should any event occur which in the public interest would involve such a course. The Standing Order reads:
Whenever the House stands adjourned and it is represented to Mr. Speaker by Her Majesty's Ministers that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker, if he is satisfied that the public interest does so require, may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice.

In order to get the machinery correct it is only necessary for me to remind hon. Members that the method by which Her Majesty's Ministers make up their minds is by obtaining or receiving representations. When they have received such representations all they have to decide is whether they are of such a character that it is in the public interest for Parliament to meet.
I can therefore give my second major assurance: not only will the spirit of the Standing Order be carried out in this very difficult year, but we shall pay due attention to any representations made to us, either by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends officially, or by any body of hon. Members which we would regard as involving a weight of opinion which would cause us to examine the question whether the House should be recalled in the public interest. Having said that, I hope it will be seen that we propose, if necessary, to recall the House in what may be described as a national emergency which involves the national interest.
The right hon. Gentleman referred in particular to the summit talks. I think that what was behind his language—he was kind enough to inform me and I could not take any possible exception—was that if there was no summit meeting, there might well be a feeling of doubt and anxiety in the country that this meeting, upon which so many hopes have been placed, was not taking place, and that therefore the situation was dangerous. I cannot give an absolutely literal undertaking about what the Government would regard as being in the public interest before the event arises. I can only say this. We arranged within our own Government procedure that the Prime Minister should make the statement to the House, which he made this afternoon and which I think we all would feel was a helpful statement. It seems, therefore, very likely—I hope virtually certain—that some such meeting would be held, in which case the question of the right hon. Gentleman need not necessarily arise.
If there should not be any such development, and if things should take such a turn as to create what one might call an emergency or an emergency situation, then, I repeat, the machinery which I have described will certainly


come into operation and the right hon. Gentleman can make what representations he may wish. The only absolute undertaking which it would be wrong for me to give is, suppose a situation developed in which there was not actually the type of summit talks at present envisaged, but a release of tension, that the Government would regard it as a type of emergency which involved the public interest or necessitated the immediate recall of Parliament. It is all a question of judgment. If the public interest is involved, and indeed it is at present involved because it is a difficult year, we should certainly wish to consult Parliament.
Having been a member of various Governments for many years I should like to say that some hon. Members probably underestimate how important it is that Ministers should have contact with Parliament. The more difficult the position the more one wishes to feel that one has the buoyancy, not only of one's own supporters, but, if possible, the whole spirit of the House behind one in taking an important decision. I am absolutely certain that I am speaking on behalf of all Her Majesty's Ministers when I say that it would be our wish to consult Parliament, should any issue of major importance come before us which did involve the public interest. I hope, therefore, that that will be satisfactory to the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned various other issues, the question of Cyprus, for example. Clearly, it is the intention of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Colonial Secretary to follow up any opportunity possible for bringing peace to that island; and I feel quite certain that in that respect the period of the Recess will not be wasted. My right hon. Friend, I am convinced, will encourage any initiative—if that is any consolation to the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends—leading to the solution of the extremely difficult situation in that island.
One or two other matters have been raised by hon. Members in relation to unemployment, to the difficulties of pensioners

and to problems in the constituencies. Here again, the Executive will not rest. They will not be absent from their posts. I think it a good thing that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade took the opportunity, before its rising, to let the House know of the possible weapons he has in his armoury to deal with local patches or local degrees of unemployment, either severe or moderate. It is satisfactory to know that there are those weapons available.
The only remaining major question that arises is the question of procedure raised by the hon. Member for Oldham, West. He said he was not entirely satisfied that we should continue indefinitely with long prorogations of the House. In coming back on 23rd October and starting the new Session on 28th October, we are not doing anything which departs from precedent. There is nothing abnormal in such a course. It follows almost exactly the precedent of 1947 under the Labour Government. But if the hon. Gentleman and his friends feel that some alteration in our procedure is necessary, I must remind him that a Committee is sitting—it will resume its labours in the autumn—which is discussing procedure and any matters such as this would be quite apt to be put to that Committee.

Mr. Hale: I cannot do that, because I am not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Butler: In that case the hon. Member has all the more opportunity of voicing his own views, without even having to give evidence. If he sticks true to form, I feel certain that he will have something to say during the course of the proceedings of that Committee.
Those are the answers to the points which have been simply and sincerely put to me. I hope that with the assurances I have given we may now depart, not all of us for a protracted holiday, but, at any rate, for a change of work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising Tomorrow, do adjourn till Thursday, 23rd October, at Eleven o'clock.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT IN WALES

4.52 p.m.

Mr. Harold Finch: This occasion affords us an opportunity to review the unemployment position in Wales. On 24th February last the House debated the general unemployment position of the country. On that occasion my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) and other hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies stressed the extent of unemployment in Wales. In addition, a number of deputations have waited on Ministers from time to time, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Ministers for so readily making themselves available to hear the views of representatives from the Principality, as well as the views of right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House.
Judging from the reply of the President of the Board of Trade yesterday to a Question concerning the administration of the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, it seems that the representations which we have made from time to time have at long last had some effect upon the Government. That is not a matter which I can discuss at the moment, but it is quite evident that the Government are now going to try to put some new life into that legislation.
We make no apology for returning to this subject of unemployment because we are deeply concerned and continue to be concerned about the serious unemployment position in the Principality. It is sometimes said that we in Wales are sensitive about these matters and I suppose that we are. We suffered much in the inter-war years with their misery and poverty. We lost thousands of our young men and women during those years because they were forced to seek work elsewhere. It was a loss to the Welsh nation, and that migration continues.

Nevertheless, since the war and in common with other parts of the country the people of Wales have enjoyed increased prosperity. Like other people, they have enjoyed a higher standard of living and have tried to forget the past.
The vigorous operation of the Distribution of Industry legislation by the Labour Government brought new life to South Wales and we entered on a new era. But some of the wounds and scars remain. I will deal with one, the ports of South Wales. These ports were built on the coal trade, upon the export trade. Millions of tons of coal poured from the Welsh valleys into the ports of Cardiff, Barry, Newport and other places, resulting in a valuable contribution to the wealth of the nation. When the depression came the coal exports fell. There has been a falling off of those exports year by year ever since, and the ports have never been able to recover from the serious position which was created in those days.
Now they have had to resort to trade in general cargo, and in so doing they are faced with at least one handicap. There are others, but the one I wish to mention is that imposed by port charges. The ports of South Wales have to pay a higher charge for exporting commodities. I know that some hon. Members on this side of the House have intimate knowledge of the conditions in the ports of South Wales, and they desire to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and so I will not discuss the matter at great length. But I beg the right hon. Gentleman to try to bring pressure on shipowners and others so that we may have some uniformity in port charges throughout the country and so that these ports, the exporters and the shippers can compete with other parts of the country on a fair basis. I hope that the Minister will give us some assurance on that matter.
Regarding the general situation, the percentage of unemployment in Wales, as at 16th June, was 3·7 per cent., the highest in the United Kingdom with the exception of Northern Ireland. The unemployment percentage in Wales is higher than in Scotland. If we examine the position in some of the Welsh regions we find that it remains serious. In the Caernarvon area the figure is about 10·2 per cent.; in Anglesey, about 9·4; in Llanelly, 8·7 and in parts of


Monmouth, Abertillery, Rhymney and Tredegar it is about 4 per cent. The House will appreciate that we are now at the height of the summer season, when the seasonal unemployment should be at its lowest level, so that there is every possibility, unfortunately, that these figures will rise in the coming months.
What is more alarming is that the number of unemployed is approximately four times greater than the number of available vacancies. In June, 1958, the number of available vacancies had dropped to 8,131 and the number had been dropping month by month. The number of unemployed is 34,944, so that in South Wales we have a situation in which there are four men seeking one job. It must be remembered that there are thousands of men working short-time and purchasing power is falling. The percentage of unemployment in Anglesey and Caernarvon shows little change, and the position in North-West Wales remains tragic. Many men have remained unemployed for years. Younger men are leaving the district, and this part of Wales is still being depopulated.
We are told that new projects are on the way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us some detailed information about that. How many men are likely to be employed in the new organisations? What are these new works? What are the prospects? I hope that we shall hear something concerning the serious position in North-West Wales.
The House will be familiar with the serious position in South-West Wales because of the closing down of the old steel and tinplate mills which were rendered redundant by the modern plants. In June, there were 8,000 men unemployed, which means that as the weeks go by the nation is losing the skill and the craftsmanship of those men. There is a waste of industrial skill in steel and tinplate work which has taken many years to produce. This creeping paralysis of unemployment is creating despair among the population of townships in Monmouthshire.
I hope that the Government will learn a lesson from the position in South-West Wales. They must have known some years ago of the prospects of those old tinplate works, yet they took no effective steps to prepare for the position. I

appreciate that efforts are now being made to bring new industries into this locality and into some others in Wales. I fully appreciate, for instance, that Lord Brecon is doing all he possibly can to bring new industries to Wales. From this side of the House we wish him well in his efforts in this direction.
It is, however, becoming late for men of 50 and 55. What are they to do, even if new industries go there within the next twelve months or two years? These men have very little prospect of getting suitable work. That is the tragedy of West Wales at the present time. I would like the Government to give special consideration to the men who have given a lifetime of work in this industry. Special assistance might be given to local authorities to embark on schemes of social amenity and, among other things, Section 3 of the Distribution of Industry Act might be properly and efficiently applied.
In addition to that, what is equally serious is that we have not yet had any promise of the restoration of Section 62 of the National Insurance Act. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelly raised this point in the debate on 24th February. What is to be the position if Section 62 is not restored? These men of 50 and 55 years of age will, after some time—six months, twelve months or eighteen months at the most—have their unemployment benefit discontinued and will be forced to take National Assistance.
I beg the House to realise what the position is. These steel and tinplate workers have given service all their lives. Many of them purchased their own homes many years ago. They are not men who have wasted their lives or their money. They have worked hard, but now, after two years of unemployment, they may find themselves taking National Assistance. This is a relic of the dark days of Wales.
I can imagine that if this position continues there will be serious protests up and down South Wales at the treatment of these men. I still hope that the right hon. Gentleman—although I know that he is not directly responsible—will remember the promise that was made by the Minister of Labour on 24th February that he would consult the Minister of Pensions whether anything could be done to help these men.
There can be no doubt that there is a need for an industrial survey of the future prospects in Wales. What are the prospects? We need consciously to plan the future of Wales, as far as that is possible. That means consciously assessing its economic exploitation. That is the chief factor which the Government should bear in mind. What do I mean? One has to try to be practical. Recently five collieries were closing in South Wales but, as the result of negotiation between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board, arrangements were made for the men declared redundant to be employed at neighbouring collieries. Those steps are now being taken.
I want the House to appreciate that some old collieries in South Wales are losing more than £1 per ton, with the result that prospects are not at all bright. It may well be that within the next few years numbers of those collieries will close down, and then it will be exceedingly difficult to get all the men reabsorbed in other collieries.
That is the future, and it is not a very pleasant one, of the mining industry at the present moment in South Wales. Consultation should take place immediately with the National Coal Board to prepare for emergencies and to ascertain what is to happen in the next few years to these collieries, what collieries are likely to close down and about when? I am sure that the National Coal Board would give the right hon. Gentleman information about that position. If we are to be faced in twelve months' time, more or less, with the closing down of pits and men being rendered idle, and with no arrangements having been made, we shall see a repetition, but on a larger scale, of what we have seen in South-West Wales.
Quite a number of steel and tinplate works, in places like Morriston and Gorseignon, are all of the old type. One wonders how long they will continue. If they are to suffer the fate of the mills in South-West Wales without any measures of preparedness being taken by the Government, here again we shall have a repetition of what happened in South-West Wales. Therefore, the Government should look now into the situation, and assess the economic position.
It is not sufficient to say, after these men have been made idle because their

mills have closed down, "We are going to put into operation the Distribution of Industry Act". That is all very well, and we certainly want that done, but I suggest that the Government should make preparations beforehand in order to avoid the calamity. The situation needs planning and preparedness on the part of the Government. When one mentions the word "planning" it is treated with a degree of scepticism by Government supporters, but if the Government let things drift and we experience a repetition of what happened in South-West Wales without measures having been taken beforehand to meet the situation, I venture to say that the Government will never be forgiven. It is the duty of any Government to maintain and to sustain the community life of the nation.
The other problem which is causing anxiety is the increasing difficulty of youth-employment officers to get young people into work. The officers are doing an excellent job of vocational guidance, yet more young people are failing to be placed in occupations. In Monmouthshire, which I know fairly well, a high proportion of young men in the past have found work in coal mines and steel undertakings, but those sources of employment are now drying up. Recruitment for them in my area stopped some time ago, and has just been resumed, I think.
Take the upper part of the Rhymney Valley where the MacLaren Colliery is closing down. This is one of the five collieries that are to be reabsorbed by other pits, but the prospects for young people are small. The only other industries in the upper part of the Valley are light engineering, brewery and clothing. There are no large warehouses or offices. The young people are in a very serious position; there is no outlet for the school-leavers.
Hon. Members will appreciate that for young people to be in enforced idleness for any length of time creates a feeling of frustration and lack of confidence which may have a damaging effect. We must also remember that we have not yet arrived at the bulge. I have been trying to estimate the position in Monmouthshire, where, I am told, by 1962 there will be 24½ per cent. of our young people seeking employment.
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the position of young


people needs special attention. When it is so difficult to get young people into mining and steel work we have to look round for other employment for them, but some employers have not been enthusiastic about taking on young people. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman could use his influence with some of those big undertakings to see what can be done to provide an avenue of employment for the growing number of young people who are unemployed.
If we are to face the future with any degree of confidence there must be new factories and greater diversification of industry in Wales. I am, of course, glad to learn that the President of the Board of Trade has decided to examine more critically applications both for new buildings and extensions outside Development Areas. We have been pressing for that for a very long time. We have drawn attention to the number of factories being built in South Wales compared with the numbers in the Home Counties. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will remember that. We drew attention to the fact that in 1957 only 1,585,000 square feet of factory space were built in South Wales compared with 9,632,000 square feet in the Home Counties. That wide disparity has been explained as being due to what are termed "extensions".
I thought, as I believe other hon. Members did, at one time that those extensions were merely additions to buildings, but we have since ascertained that they also include extensions to existing industries. We ask what kind of new industrial development is not an extension of an existing industrial development? What is the position? These so-called extensions have resulted in the employment of many hundreds, if not thousands, of industrial workers in districts which are already densely populated. The other day I was reading a letter in The Times on this point and I found it very illuminating. A Mr. Ritson wrote in The Times on 29th July:
Statistics published by the Ministry of Labour and National Service show that between 1951 and 1957 the insured population of Great Britain increased by over one million and that half of this increase was in the London, South-Eastern and Southern regions. It is also shown that the net migration of workers into the Southern regions amounted to 142,000 while there was net migration from

Scotland of 49,000, the North-West region of 22,000, East and West Ridings 21,000. Northern region 19,000 and Wales 27,000.
The writer went on to remind his readers that:
Some 18 years ago the report of the Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the distribution of the industrial population drew attention to the southward drift of industry and population and made recommendations designed to redress the balance. The influence of this report was seen in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, and for a time it appeared that rigorous action was being taken. In recent years, however, the trend to the South appears to have gathered momentum.
It is true that the southern counties are getting more and more congested and that migration of workers to them is continuing from Wales. The time has arrived for some inquiry to be made about this change in population. The new proposals of the Government in connection with the Distribution of Industry Act, if used effectively, could help, in some degree at least, to stop the increasing migration, but, although we have words on this subject, we want deeds. We want to see how this is to work out in practice. Do the Government mean to put their shoulder to this job and to do it efficiently?
One or two proposals in the statement by the President of the Board of Trade need clarification. We are having this debate today on unemployment in Wales and it is very significant that a Question was replied to yesterday on the subject. It would have been more satisfactory if we had had some knowledge of this in order to be in a position to debate it today. The President of the Board of Trade said:
I realise that the location of a new development in one of these places may result in a firm having to bear increased costs both in building the new factory"—
I quite appreciate that—
and in connection with the movement of its plant or its key workers, or in the marketing of its products."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1958; Vol. 592, c. 157.]
Do I understand that transport costs will be included in these marketing arrangements? I particularly stress this because I know that some industrialists have long been asking that costs should be included and compensation should be given if they move to remote areas, that is, that those costs should be paid for by the Government in order to help industrialists who have to pay more for transport to go into


remote areas, which increases the cost of their products. It is necessary to get some clarification of what is meant by saying that assistance will be given in the marketing of products. If a legitimate case can be made by firms that their costs of production have been increased through longer transport haul of goods to the marketing centres, that would be a powerful inducement for undertakings to come to remote areas. The Government will realise that it is essential to be clearly satisfied in each case before such help is given.
Perhaps the Government will tell us how much money is likely to be involved in such projects, when such funds are to be available from the Treasury and if these proposals entirely exclude other areas. I have already mentioned certain areas in Monmouthshire where the unemployment is equal to 4 per cent. There are other parts of Wales in the same position. Are they to be left out when the Government—quite rightly, I have no quarrel with that—are concentrating on the areas mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade? Does this exclude assistance being given when industrialists are prepared to go to areas which are not those mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade? It is important that we should have some clarification of that.
The unemployment position in Wales cannot be dissociated from the general economy of Britain. The immediate outlook for the whole country is not at all promising. Although so far we have not suffered greatly from the American recession and the general world situation, it is clear that there has already been some effect of the American recession and there is likely to be much greater effect in the near future. I do not believe the recent Government measures go far enough towards solving these problems. There is considerable waste of industrial capacity in the country and every danger of increased unemployment in the months to come with a falling demand and falling production. We require a greatly expanding economy. This is one of the reasons why I fail to understand the long delay in siting the proposed strip mill. In the Financial Times on Tuesday an industrial correspondent wrote:
The Iron and Steel Board is still anxious that a start should be made as soon as possible because unless present estimates are wildly out

even the addition to the capacity of the existing three mills will not suffice to meet the existing demand in the middle 'sixties.
The right hon. Gentleman will realise that if work is commenced on this new strip mill it will take some years before it is in full production. In view of the unemployment in Wales and the serious position we face, I hope he will give some indication without delay that this mill, which would considerably ease the unemployment situation, is to be sited in Wales.
There was an article in the Daily Mail which said that new plans had been put forward for a strip mill in Scotland. I do not know what truth there is in that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can give us some assurance as to what is the position.
In conclusion, I want to say that we have to tidy up Wales as a whole and South Wales in particular. We know that Lord Brecon is doing what he can to bring new industries to Wales, but if the Government want to make his task easier they should get rid of some of those awful sites in some of the districts of Wales.
The right hon. Gentleman has travelled Wales a good deal, but I do not know whether he has travelled to Swansea and passed through Landore which is a most distressing area. It is the graveyard of industry. Swansea was smashed up in the war but has been rebuilt gloriously. Yet, when coming into Swansea one sees this old site. It is not very encouraging for prospective industrialists when coming into the district, and, perhaps never having been there before, to see old works of that kind. When one is a prospective tenant one likes to see the rooms and to be able to say what fine rooms they are. We are not doing that yet in Wales. We have a similar position in Bargoed, where the old coke ovens are closing down. Are they to remain there year in and year out, taking up valuable sites which could be used for new industry?
I do not want the House to infer from this that we have not beautiful country in Wales; but very often these new undertakings are wanted in the very places where these old sites prevail. Therefore, I am wondering whether the right hon. Gentleman could enter into consultation with the local authorities,


the National Coal Board or with industrialists. I am not in a position to say that he is responsible for this state of affairs, but he will be doing a great service if he will take some measures to deal with the position that I have described.
We are all anxious to see new industries come to Wales, and we did not raise this debate in any carping criticism, but I say that the position in South Wales and in Wales generally remains serious. I want again to emphasise that we do not want a repetition of what has occurred in South-West Wales. We want the Government to plan and prepare. If they do not do that, there will be in South Wales a feeling of hostility which the Government will take many years to recover from.

5.23 p.m.

Mr. David Llewellyn: I listened to the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), as I am sure the whole House did with the greatest attention, although I cannot say with total agreement. I do not wish to do him any harm when I say that I should like to hear him speaking from the Dispatch Box very much more often than we now hear him. I am sure that I am speaking for every hon. Member who has heard him this afternoon when I say that he has spoken with complete authority. It was a delight to hear every word that he had to say.
I should also like to say personally, and I am sure I speak for many other hon. Members, how strange it is to have a debate on unemployment and about industrial conditions in Wales without Mr. Granville West being with us. While we congratulate him on his translation, many hon. Members in this House will miss him very much indeed.
Although this debate is rightly and properly concerned with unemployment—and I have no quarrel with its timing—I think that national self-interest and truth alike require that we should avoid giving the impression that the Welsh scene is one of unrelieved gloom. I am glad that the hon. Member for Bedwellty went out of his way not to do so.
We have, of course, many blessings to count, as has been rightly conceded. In all parts of the House the news that progress

is to be resumed on the Severn Bridge and yesterday's news that there is to be a better road link with the Midlands will be greeted with pleasure. If the bottlenecks at Chepstow and Newport are also tackled it will no longer be arguable that bad roads to England are solely responsible for the plight of Cardiff Docks.
I do not intend to speak again about that plight at any length this afternoon, because the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) can speak with the authority of specialisation and of representing in this House the docks themselves. I would say however that despite frequent requests to more Governments than one the vicious circle still persists with the British Transport Commission saying, "Get more trade and we will provide more facilities," and Cardiff saying, "Provide facilities and then we can get more trade." Meanwhile, as the hon. Member for Bedwellty pointed out, the antiquated structure of charges remains and there is widespread feeling—whether it is justified or not I cannot tell—that the British Transport Commission is content for Cardiff to run down to the point of redundancy.
If this is the intention, it would be rather kinder to say so frankly. Cardiff Docks could then become a scheduled area and qualify for the full treatment of State aid. I have also noted, and I think it it right, that the Government plan to help non-industrial projects in the new scheduled areas. I should like to see this extended to enterprises of outstanding social value in the non-scheduled areas.
Hon. Members in all parts of the House will share in the pride which Wales has felt, and feels, at the success of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games. It was one of the happiest Commonwealth gatherings ever to have taken place anywhere, especially with its wonderful climax. I hope that it will not be thought frivolous on my part or irrelevant to the debate if I say one word about the athletic track at Cardiff Arms Park, which was the best in the world and which is now being dismantled, partly to provide more room along the touchline and partly to enable greyhounds to resume their night patrols. Posterity may judge that this is carrying love of


animals too far. This is not the fault of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games Federation or of the Cardiff Arms Park authorities. They are both bound together by the terms of an inevitable contract. The fact is that this track is in danger of being lost to Wales for the want of a mere £8,000, despite the fact that there is land available at Parc Cae Delyn, near Whitchurch. The Cardiff Rural District Council is anxious to acquire it and is willing to provide all ancillary buildings, but it cannot raise the money that is required. I am asking my right hon. Friend whether a grant or loan for the re-erection of this track could be made to a local authority or to a contractor to a local authority or to a body of guarantors, either in a scheduled area or outside. Whatever the answer may be, I hope that my right hon. Friend will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with great urgency in order to ensure that this track may be saved, either by means of the new Act or by some other means.
Of far greater importance is the effect of the Government's developing policy on the siting of the new strip mill. Are we to understand now that if a strip mill comes to Wales it will be built in a scheduled area? Secondly, can the Minister give a pledge that it will not be built in a non-scheduled area outside Wales?
I saw that The Times deplored, in a leading article this morning, the absence of any adequate reference to efficiency in the Government's plans. I cannot grasp how, in terms of health and welfare—with their bearing on production—it is efficient to overcrowd the Home Counties and the Midlands while leaving men to rot in Wales, and denuding whole communities of young people.
A case on the grounds of efficiency could have been made against almost every project established in Wales in the 1930s, and since the war. The other day, I had the privilege and pleasure of being with the hon. Member for Bedwellty and the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Pearson) at the South Wales Switchgear Works in Pontllanfraith. There, I am certain, the firm was told originally of the difficulties of getting managers to Wales, the difficulties of communication, the shortage of skilled labour and so on; but what that

firm has found is that, given a fair deal and inspired leadership, such as has been provided by Mr. A. J. Nicholas, Welsh labour is the most adaptable, skilled and loyal to be found.
Finally, who is to tell the world what Wales has to offer? I believe that my right hon. Friend has hinted at the formation of a Welsh council for industry. It has been suggested in the Press that what is wanted for such a council is a Welsh chairman of the calibre of Lord Chandos, to carry out the work in Wales that has been done in Northern Ireland. I believe that, in the development of this policy, this council is now a most urgent need. I am sure that it should consist of men in industry whose names, whose firms and whose trade unions are already household words throughout the world. I understand the danger of forcing a growth of this kind, but I believe that if the Government's plans are to have the best chance of success, the sooner such a council is formed the better.

5.32 p.m.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: I should like to join with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on what was, if I may say so, a most admirable, able and moving speech. The hon. Member stressed the very serious nature of the unemployment problem in Wales, he gave figures, which showed that Wales has now the unenviable position of having the highest unemployment figures in the United Kingdom. As he said, it is a case of four men applying for one job.
As the House well knows, unemployment in South-West Wales has more than doubled since last year, and, to show that this is no new problem, the percentage of insured workers unemployed in Carmarthenshire alone has been almost double the national average for the past five years. And that is not unusual in other rural areas in the country. This, of course, is by no means the whole picture. We have to consider not only those who are unemployed now, but the school leavers, for whom employment has to be found. We find that in Wales the total number of school leavers is 30,000, almost as great as the number of those unemployed. That will give the House some idea of the nature of the problem with which we have to contend.
When the House last debated unemployment, the Government put before us a proposal that a four-man panel should be appointed to inquire into the possibility of readapting the old hand tinplate mills in South-West Wales for modern use. The Government have now had the panel's report, and we have had a sort of bowdlerised version of it. We now know that the report is completely negative, and that the shutters will be pulled down on all the hand tinplate mills by 1959.
The Government said, through that report, "You must abandon any ideas of readapting the old hand tinplate mills, and look to the diversification of industry for any future development." The Government assured us that they were pursuing this policy with energy. So far, I believe that three or four—or, possibly, a maximum of five—industries are in process of coming to the South-West. That is a beginning, a good beginning—but it is only a beginning.
I should like to consider these industrial projects in the cold light of the employment that they will provide. On the short-term basis, we are assured that these industries will provide employment for about 3,000 workers; on the long-term basis, the figure will be about 5,000. But the ultimate unemployment figure for South-West Wales alone will be in the region of 14,000 or 15,000, so that the House must see, in spite of everything that has been said, that the gap is still alarmingly wide.
The Government now say, "But that is not all. We shall now take further action under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act." Of course, we are all delighted that the areas that have been left out in the cold for so long, particularly in North Wales, will now qualify for Government assistance. Nevertheless, I must say that I cannot join in the rejoicing, because I cannot say that I feel that the battle has been won.
When I opened one of my Welsh newspapers this morning I saw a large headline, "Wales—The Promised Land." Of course, Wales is the promised land, but not because the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act, is to apply there. It is the promised land for many other reasons. It is the promised land

because it has a great many of the things that industrialists need.
It has power and good sites. It has among the most intelligent workers that could be found anywhere. It has extremely good labour relations, a very important asset. It has admirable educational facilities, and it is a far healthier place to live in. To me, it is an extraordinary thing that we have to pass laws to discourage people from living in Greater London and encourage them to live in Wales. I should have thought that it would have been almost a law of nature.
I should like to look at these provisions of the new Distribution of Industry Act. Does it provide for new or additional powers? The main power is the same as in the old Act, and it is a negative one. Under it, the Board of Trade simply says to an industrialist, "You may not go, or we shall do our best to persuade you from going, to the Greater London or the Birmingham areas." How has that worked out in the past? In 1957, it resulted in 1,580,000 sq. ft. of factory space in Wales, and 9,632,000 sq. ft. of factory space in the Home Counties.
And now the Government say, "Look at what we are doing. See how generous we are. We shall extend this practice at present applied in the Greater London and Birmingham areas to other parts of the United Kingdom where unemployment is low." As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty said, I hope that that negative power will be used to far greater effect than that. I also hope, and I stress this, that no major industrial development will be sanctioned in an area where unemployment is now, and certainly not in an area of full employment. In addition to this negative power, the Government are entitled to say, "We have got inducements which we are offering to industrialists", and the inducements are certainly considerable. We should stress that fact, and they are being extended in this new Measure and we on this side of the House are very glad of that.
But what machinery is there in the Board of Trade to ensure that all these facilities are made known to industrialists, particularly in the two largest catchment areas, London and Birmingham? It


seems to me, from two or three cases that have been brought to my personal notice, that information should be made more generally available about the exact assistance which industrialists can expect if they set up in these areas. Has the Board of Trade any machinery for this purpose? Has it a list compiled of industrialists who are ready to establish themselves in these areas?
The Minister of State for Welsh Affairs, Lord Brecon, has been doing some admirable sales talk in the Midlands, and we should all like to pay a tribute to him because we appreciate the efforts that he has made and particularly the sincerity that lies behind those efforts. But occasional visits, however stimulating, are not enough. We should go out and find these industries. There should be continual contact with large industrial groups, because those are the people whom we wish to encourage.
The highest industrial mortality rate in Wales has been among the small firms and branch firms. Out of 500 or 600 firms which have been introduced to Wales since the war, only about 370 still survive. We want firms which are prepared to stay the course—not extensions or branch factories which will close down at the first chill wind of a recession.
Are the Government depending only on industrial and non-industrial ventures to relieve unemployment? Are they quite sure that industrialists are in the mood for expansion at the moment? Have they the means for expansion, particularly at a time when credit facilities are still difficult, in spite of recent changes? The President of the Board of Trade warned the O.E.E.C. on Monday that the recession was likely to hit Europe and, of course, we are likely to feel the backwash of that recession. Demand has already slackened in Europe for coal, steel, and textiles, and the most ominous sign of all is that the earnings of primary producing countries are lower.
I should like to know, therefore, whether the Government are relying solely on industrial undertakings. Are they prepared to consider as part of special assistance in unemployment areas a programme of public works? We have heard very little about that in past debates. Only the other day the President of the Board of Trade said that it often happens that it is not a factory that will

attract a firm, but better communications, and that has been very true of Wales. We were all very glad to hear yesterday that work is to proceed on the Heads-of-the-Valleys Road, the Ross Spur motorway and the Port Talbot Bypass. When will those road schemes be completed, and will the work be accelerated because of the unemployment conditions in Wales? Would the Government further make available in areas of high unemployment additional grants so that urgent road development schemes can be proceeded with?
I should like to know whether the Government are prepared to relax their restrictions in the public investment sector. After all, public investment is more or less directly within the control of the Government. The Chancellor said the other day that if it seemed wise to increase the total programme the Government would take appropriate action. Will the Government consider giving further special assistance to these scheduled areas with regard to roads, railways and electricity, and even to the coal investment programme?
Reference has been made today by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty to the need for an economic plan for Wales, and the need for assessing her resources in coal, land, power and water. I should like to make a practical suggestion in that respect, and ask whether it might be possible to have a Welsh representative on the Treasury Investment Committee which is responsible for investment in the public sector. After all, we have no Secretary of State for Wales as yet, although Scotland has.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Lady may have ours.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: The Scots can keep him. We shall choose our own when the time comes, and we shall see to it that he is a Welshman.
It would be an enormous advantage to us in the meantime if we could be in at the planning stage of this important operation. We have got not only unemployment but depopulation in Wales, and both these devitalising processes are lowering our standard of life. I want the Government to realise that we shall not be satisfied with generalisations. Our wrath will not be turned away by soft answers. We shall not be satisfied with


projects in the air. We shall only be satisfied with industries which are properly grounded on Welsh sites.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The House will have noted that this debate is in many ways superior in form to previous Welsh debates. That is probably due to the fact that for once we are able to concentrate on a fairly narrow field in Welsh affairs—indeed, upon one main subject. It indicates the need in future of having other debates on single subjects rather than having the rather haphazard and diversified approach on many topics which characterises our usual Welsh debates.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I should like to say how much I appreciate the manner in which the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) opened this debate. He did so without extravagance and without extreme partisan expressions, in a manner which was acceptable to us all. I should like to make one or two comments on the hon. Member's speech, but my comments will not be provocative or very critical. He implied that by careful planning we could to a large degree isolate ourselves as a country, or hide ourselves or protect ourselves from the effects of even a major world-wide depression in trade and industry.
I doubt whether that is so. I doubt whether any country can achieve that by internal planning of its own affairs, particularly a country like ours, where so much depends on exports to other parts of the world. Nevertheless, I agree that by planning we can mitigate the effects of what I believe is not serious long-term unemployment or depression, but is a shorter-term matter.
In that context, I should like to comment on the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that Section 62 of the National Insurance Act, 1948, should be revived or reintroduced in some new form. I suggest that that Section was rather more suitable for dealing with relatively short-term unemployment. I doubt whether, if we had large-scale unemployment over a wide section of the economy, even that would be adequate.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. The

whole intention of Section 62 was not to deal with short-term unemployment. That is covered by the major provision in that Act. It was to deal precisely with long-term unemployment, and because it was so successful in that respect we think that it ought to be restored.

Mr. Gower: I have some doubt whether it would be adequate for serious unemployment of the kind that we had before the war. I think that in that case the fund would be rapidly exhausted and a new method of Treasury financing would be necessary. I do not think that we are facing unemployment of that kind, however. I think it is more specialised.

Mr. Finch: May I correct the hon. Gentleman and point out that there was no fund to finance Section 62?

Mr. Gower: Should I say that the finances of the National Insurance Act would be even more out of gear than they are at present and that there would be an even greater need for some new proposals?
The unemployment which we are facing now is more particularised in two or three industries. It is not necessarily associated with the national conditions which affect the whole country. Certainly, that is not the case in unemployment in South-West Wales, which is due solely to the obsolescence of the old-type steel industries and the need to replace that industry by a much more modern form of steel works.
While we are all anxious about the position of the old-type mills, we must be equally gratified at the stable employment position around Port Talbot where, I read, the Ministry of Labour has reported full employment in the town and, indeed, wonderful prospects for the future. We have expectations and, indeed, hopes that future developments in Pembrokeshire may provide similar prospects in that part of South Wales.
I, like other hon. Members, would like to know whether we can now have a definite announcement about the siting of the Richard Thomas and Baldwins strip mill. The company wishes this new project to be situated in South Wales, and so does the Iron and Steel Board. This surely indicates that there are economic advantages in siting a new project in that part of the country. There is,


for example, the advantage of available skilled labour. I hope that in the near future we shall have some information and that my right hon. Friend will be able to bring new hope to other parts of Wales. Some months ago we heard about an atomic energy project in North-West Wales, and I hope that we shall have some information about that as well in the near future. These are projects which can be of hopeful significance in Wales.
With regard to the unemployment level, my right hon. Friend and his colleagues have given hope by the announcement which we all read yesterday. I agree that in the past it has seemed to some of us that more could have been done to divert industries from the south-east of England and particularly from the Greater London area. It seems now that teeth are being put into the Development of Industry Acts, that the Board of Trade will definitely be very firm in dealing with applications for development certificates, which should do a lot to encourage firms to go to the areas where they are most needed. In addition, as the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) suggested, something could be done by public bodies. I hope that my right hon. Friend will represent to the Ministry of Transport that road development could take place with advantage in areas where there is this higher unemployment before starting such projects in other areas.
Why cannot representations be made to the British Transport Commission to concentrate its modernisation programme in the first place in these areas? Presumably, the Commission has an ambitious programme of modernisation spread over the whole country. Why not let these areas have the first go? This is a reasonable suggestion which could be made to the Transport Commission without interfering unduly with its plans.
I will not detain the House much longer, but I wish to reiterate the plea which has been made on so many occasions in recent months on behalf of the South Wales ports. The problem is not limited solely to the charges made by the Transport Commission, important as those are. The undertaking given by Sir Brian Robertson, a few years ago, that these ports would not be prejudiced by the freedom of permission to charge, and

that they would be given a fair crack of the whip, should be implemented. There is, however, also the question of apportionment of the customary charges between exporters and shippers. This is of the highest importance. I hope that my right hon. Friend will use his influence in this direction.
Some of the people in South Wales who protest about the state of affairs in the docks are themselves associated with industries which are making our problem extremely difficult. The fact remains that they expect better terms and conditions when they come to the South Wales ports than they obtain when they go to Liverpool or London, or many other parts of the country. There is reason for all these apportionments and customs to be brought into line all over the country.
Another matter, which I raised at Question Time yesterday and which I should like to express again today, is that our ports cannot properly tackle their job of increasing their general cargo exports unless they quickly have better communications with the hinterland, and particularly the industrial hinterland of the Midlands. Here we must press the importance of the second crossing at Newport, to which reference has already been made. Anybody who tries to drive a motor car into South Wales through Chepstow and Newport knows the problem. For industrial traffic to have to take this route is a terrible handicap to our docks.
I hope that this question will receive the earnest attention of my right hon. Friend and of his colleague the Minister of Transport, because these docks, even today, are first-class establishments which can give great service. They have given very great service in wartime as well as in peace. It would be a tragedy if because of a change in the nature of the economic development of South Wales, their future was completely prejudiced.
I appreciate, as will the hon. Member for Bedwellty, that those docks, peculiarly enough, were more prosperous in the days of general industrial depression. Indeed, in a strange way, it is the economic prosperity of South Wales which has created part of their problem. As our industry has grown and used more coal, less coal has become available for export. This problem is likely to be increased, because with the use of increased coal


supplies at places like Aberthaw and the Usk No. 2 power station, it is likely that the coal available for export will be further depleted. This increases the urgency of the problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) raised a problem which seemed to me to be slightly outside the scope of this debate when he referred to the Empire Games Stadium and its splendid track. Nevertheless, it is a borderline case. The holding of the Commonwealth Games in Cardiff brought a great number of overseas people to Wales. If it is possible for the Cardiff Rural District Council, Which is in part of my constituency, to be given assistance, I am sure that all over Wales there will be appreciation for any help that my right hon. Friend can give in this direction.

5.59 p.m.

Mr. James Callaghan: I echo the last sentence of the plea made by the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that we should endeavour in some way to preserve the Empire Games track at Cardiff if at all possible. The need to give an outlet to young people in the South Wales valleys is of paramount importance and it could be done at small cost.
This is the only day in the year on which, as far as I know, a Welsh Labour Member envies the hon. Member for Barry and his hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn). On the doctrine that speakers alternate from side to side of the House, those two hon. Members can be quite certain of being called. That is, no doubt, a great advantage.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) had a tremendous opportunity at the Box today. He took it with both hands. He spoke with clarity, with firmness, with authority and with great skill. I venture to believe that it is not the last time that he will be speaking from that Box, or, who knows, perhaps from the Government Dispatch Box. As he has donned the mantle of responsibility, I have thrown it off. I promise my hon. Friends that I will not take more than 10 minutes to make the point I want to make about the position in the South Wales ports.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) recently

raised the question of charges in South Wales, which is of vital importance not only to Cardiff, but also to the other ports in the area. The hon. Member for Barry has raised the matter again today. I would like my hon. Friends to appreciate the degree of unemployment that exists among those discharging and loading the ships. The figures which have been supplied to me from the National Dock Labour Board show some startling statistics.
Taking the last twelve months, the percentage of men unemployed in the docks, signing the register, without work, has run as follows: in the second quarter of last year, 27·7 per cent.; in the third quarter of last year, 23·4 per cent.; in the fourth quarter, 17·1 per cent.; in the first quarter of this year, 28·1 per cent.; and last quarter, which ended on 30th June, 27 per cent. These figures are of the utmost gravity in Cardiff as well as in the other ports of South Wales. It is for that reason that I want to spend a little time on the problem this afternoon.
Mr. Friend, who is well known in South Wales as the area secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union, tells us, in a letter given to me by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), that the number of those employed through the National Dock Labour Board in the last five years has dropped from 4,445 to 2,725. This position is becoming of increasing gravity, particularly in the ports of Cardiff and of Barry, more so, indeed, than in Newport or in Swansea, for particular reasons known to my hon. Friends.
I agree with the hon. Member for Barry—and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West took almost the whole of his recent Adjournment debate on this point—that it is very necessary to try to get the charges right. I do not know what the Minister can do. This is a purely commercial matter between the exporters, those operating the docks and the shipowners. I do not know how the Minister can intervene, but it is an obstacle upon which we must continually focus attention.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said in his Adjournment debate the other night that it is this obstacle which prevents a certain amount of trade from coming to the South Wales


ports. I do not believe that if we could get rid of this obstacle, we should then have tremendous prosperity in the South Wales ports, because trade gets itself into well-worn and deep grooves and those ruts now run through London, Liverpool, Hull and other ports of that nature. Nevertheless, there is no reason why we should erect barriers in the road for ourselves. That is one reason why we must continue to press the Government to use all their influence—I sympathise with the Minister in this—with the exporters and the shipowners to try to get treatment in the South Wales ports parallel to that which obtains in other ports throughout the United Kingdom.
Now I should like to say a word about dry docks and ship repairs. So far, I have been speaking about the wet docks. The dry docks position is just as grave. I would like to give the House some figures, kindly supplied to me by the Ministry of Labour, showing the position in the ship-repairing industry in Cardiff, Bute Docks, Penarth, Barry and Llantwit Major. The percentage of unemployment in the ship-repairing industry has varied in this way from January: in January, it was 7 per cent.; in February, 12·9 per cent.; in March, 8·1 per cent.; in April, 19·9 per cent.; in May, 24·8 per cent.; and in June, 16·4 per cent. In the wet docks, therefore, we have an average of over 20 per cent. of the men unemployed. In ship repairing, we are varying with between 7 and 24 per cent. of men out of work.
I am sure that I have the sympathy of my hon. Friends when I say that I could not keep quiet this afternoon knowing that this situation existed in these areas. I am constantly speaking about Cyprus, Malta and other important questions, but these are our own people. I had to bring this matter to the attention of the House and make certain suggestions to the Minister about the way in which this situation should be handled.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport has a similar problem there and he has given me the details which have been supplied to him on the ship-repairing side. His position is not as serious on the wet docks side, but it is just as serious as that of Cardiff on the ship-repairing side. We are faced with real poverty in the homes of many

of the ship repairers, who are getting only one, two or three days' work a week.
While I am on this point, I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour, whom I am very glad to see present. In 1957, the new National Insurance Act was passed. Section 4 was bitterly resisted both by the T.U.C. General Council and also by this side of the House. I do not know whether its effect was ever considered in relation to ship-repair workers, who, under the terms of their trade, work a five-day week. It is, however, having a serious effect upon these men who are now getting only two or three days' work a week, because their unemployment pay is related to a six-day working week.
I have calculated some figures which, I trust, are accurate. It is difficult to work out the figures exactly, but, as I see it, the position is that a ship repairer who is working a short working week of only three days will get only 26s. 8d. unemployment benefit—I am assuming that he is married and that the waiting days and all the rest have been observed—plus his three days' pay. If he is working for two days a week, he gets only 40s. unemployment insurance benefit. If he works only one day a week, he gets only 53s. 4d. on which to live, plus a day's wages. This is the administrative grievance. I do not propose a remedy for it—that would be for the Minister to propose—and I should be out of order if I did so. If the unemployment pay were related to the five-day working week which is customary in the industry, the amount of unemployment benefit would go up considerably.
The way I work it out, which is subject to correction, is that if a man worked two days a week, instead of getting 40s. a week dole he would get 48s. That can mean a substantial difference to a man who is living at that level. If he were working one day a week, instead of getting 53s. 4d. he would get 64s. a week.
I put this grievance very strongly to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and I have both had representations on this point from the Transport and General Workers' Union, in Cardiff. It is not merely a grievance. It is a great hardship that in these days, when the average weekly wage is about £12, people in this casual


industry should be living on £3, £4 or £5 a week for many weeks, as the unemployment figures of the last few months show. This has been going on for over a year, particularly in Cardiff and Newport. It is a very real grievance that needs remedying.
I have been eight minutes, Mr. Speaker, and in the two minutes left to me I want to make some proposals to the Government about what they could do to help. The Annual Report on Wales and Monmouthshire for the year ended 30th June, 1957, said:
… major developments at Cardiff"—
that is, by the British Transport Commission—
must wait until there is a better prospect of a financial return being received on the investment involved.
If we wait for that, it will never be done. When the president of the Licensed Victuallers' Association stands with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West on the same platform to campaign against the Sunday opening of "pubs", that will be the day when we shall see some return for that. Or, to give an even more fantastic example, when the Welsh Nationalist Party invites the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) to become its president in its anniversary year, these conditions will, perhaps, be satisfied. We simply cannot wait until then.
I have three proposals to make to the Government. In the first place, it is absolutely right that we ought to have a marginal amount of coal always available for export, a cushion on which the industry should rest. The suggestion made before from these benches, that there should be 10 million tons of coal exported every year, even if we had to import other types of coal, would make an absolutely invaluable contribution to the welfare of the South Wales ports.
In 1949, when I was at the Ministry of Transport, I went into the possibility, with the Cardiff City Council, of using the pool next to the Queen's Dock as a new dry dock. We set up an Admiralty committee to examine the matter—I think that I am at liberty to say this—and, in late 1950, it reported in favour of using this pool as a dry dock. Will the Minister now revive this plan and try to turn the pool, 600 ft. of the wall of which already exists,

having been built in 1907 over fifty years ago, into a dry dock which could be used for the largest ships?
It may sound paradoxical to suggest more dry docks when there is unemployment in the ship-repairing industry. The truth is that our dry docks in South Wales are, on the whole, not capable of taking the larger ships of today, and, of course, the size of ships is tending to increase. There is the new Atlantic shipyard at Newport now in process of construction, but, on the whole, our dry docks, with one or two exceptions, are not capable of taking large vessels. The use of the pool for a dry dock would make a most valuable addition to resources of South Wales.
Sir Herbert Merrett made two proposals recently, bath of which ought to be taken up. He told us that the West Dock, in Cardiff, was derelict—it is his word, not mine—and the East Dock was obsolete—again his word, not mine. He suggested that these docks should be converted into an industrial estate of 150 to 200 acres. I am not competent to judge the technical merits of that suggestion. He has had a great deal of experience in South Wales, but if it could be done technically, then I believe that it would be a tremendous asset to the area.
Thirdly—this is his suggestion, with which I wish to associate myself—we should consider the possibility of submarine pipelines out into the Bristol Channel so that tankers might discharge oil while lying off-shore. It is done at Bahrein and Accra, and many of us have seen these things done elsewhere. There is a tremendous rise and fall of tide in South Wales, about 40 or 45 ft., but there would not be the same difficulty if we had off-shore facilities of this kind.
I ask the Minister not to let Cardiff die of slow starvation. We would sooner have our throats cut than that. I believe it to be true that the British Transport Commission is ignoring Cardiff and concentrating on Newport and Swansea. I envy those places—good luck to them—I am not complaining about that. The Transport Commission may have taken that decision as a matter of policy, and, for the Commission, it may be the right decision; but we in Cardiff have a right to know whether this is the policy of the Government as well as of the Commission. It ought not to be left to the Commission


when it is of such vital importance to the capital city.
I know that we have plenty of them in Wales, but I would ask the Minister to set up a committee to inquire into the special position of Cardiff Docks in particular, with a view to examining these technical matters concerning the dry docks, the submarine pipeline and the proposal to fill in the West and East Dock.
The Minister himself could be on that committee. Let him make Lord Brecon chairman of it; it would be a splendid idea if he were to take the chair at such an inquiry. Let the Ministry of Transport and the Admiralty be represented. Sir Herbert Merrett himself could be on it, and the local authority, the Cardiff City Council, could be associated with it. Let us see what we can do to get away from the past decade, the dreary dirge of dismal depression which has surrounded Cardiff Docks ever since—I am sorry to say—the end of the war. Let us try to revive them on some other basis.
I have exceeded my time, Mr. Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friends for having done so, but, in extenuation, I can but say that this is the first time since 1952.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Roderic Bowen: This discussion on unemployment in Wales has been concentrated so far, and, no doubt, will continue to be concentrated quite naturally and properly, upon the industrial areas of Wales, in particular, those which have high unemployment, and those areas which have been selected by the President of the Board of Trade for special assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act of this year. But I believe that the overall picture in Wales cannot be presented properly if nothing is said about the situation in rural Wales and the problems encountered there through rural depopulation.
I do not in any way dissent from what has been said about the industrial areas of Wales. The hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) put the matter admirably, and I share many of his anxieties. I welcome the introduction of the Act to which I have just referred, and I particularly welcome what the President of the Board of Trade had to say yesterday. It is quite clear that the Government now

have specific powers to assist those areas which are in need of special assistance. All one can hope is that they will make full use of them. The fact remains that these new steps are not likely, in themselves, to be of any assistance to the rural areas. Indeed, in some ways they may even aggravate them.
The criterion for the selection of particular areas under the Act has been their figures of unemployment. I do not complain about that. I wish to point out, however, that unemployment figures in rural areas provide only a partial indication of the plight with which such areas are faced. It is quite easy to have relatively small unemployment figures if the population has been steadily depleted by an exodus from the rural areas of people who have gone in search of work.
Unemployment figures in the rural areas in no way indicate the problem of school leavers, particularly in obtaining employment. In the rural areas of Wales there is a depleted and ever-ageing population. This is a feature which, unfortunately, is common to most rural areas, but there can be no doubt that the position is far more acute in the rural areas of Wales than it is in any other part of Great Britain.
I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes, because I know that there are hon. Members from areas where unemployment figures are high who wish to contribute to the discussion, but I wish to ask the Government whether they have any specific proposals for alleviating the rural depopulation problem in the principality.
If I may refer to my own constituency, at present the unemployment figures are rather more favourable than they have been for some time solely because we have a hydro-electric scheme in North Cardiganshire and also the Teifi Pools water scheme. We welcome both these admirable schemes, but they will make only a transitory contribution towards our unemployment difficulties; they will not make any long-term contribution towards providing employment for our young people. Year by year the cream of our population, our young men and women, are driven to seeking employment elsewhere, with the result that it is becoming more and more difficult for the local authorities in those areas to maintain adequate social services.
The Rural Wales Committee stated in its Report that the possibility of establishing light industries in the rural areas was relatively unexplored, but also said, quite clearly, that where it had been attempted generally it had been highly successful. I should like to know whether the Government have any proposals for assisting the establishment of light industries in the rural areas of Wales.
I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour. Quite recently, he had the opportunity of meeting members of the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. That Association has specifically considered this problem, but unless it receives Government help and co-operation from private industry, and in particular, from the local authorities represented on that Association, all its efforts will be in vain.
The Development Area policy which has been pursued up to now, in particular since 1945, admirable though it was for the Development Areas concerned, has considerably aggravated the problem in the rural areas. I could give examples from my constituency where, since 1945, industrialists were contemplating establishing light industries, but, by reason of Government policy from 1945 onwards, were deliberately discouraged from establishing light industries in those areas. They were specifically told, "You will receive no Government help in establishing light industries in the rural areas. You will receive that assistance only if you go to Development Areas". Far from receiving assistance from the Government, from 1945 to 1958 Government action has been directed towards dissuading industrialists from going into rural areas. All I ask is that that process should be reversed and that every possible assistance should be given to private industry to develop in rural areas.
I welcomed the last two or three sentences of the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, when he referred to the problem of rural depopulation. He referred to the existence of the Development Fund. As I understand, he implied that the fund was available to assist in the establishment of light industries in rural areas.

How much has gone out of the Development Fund since, shall we say, 1945 towards the establishment of sources of employment in the rural areas? I suspect that very little money has left the fund for this purpose. What I want more particularly to know is whether it is envisaged that that fund will be used to any substantial extent to help in establishing light industries in rural areas in the future and on what basis the money is to be made available.
I believe that local authorities in these areas are acutely conscious of the important part they have to play if success is to be achieved. I believe that local authorities in most of our rural areas have come forward, or will come forward, with information about sites, services and the labour available. All I hope is that the Government will do what they can to persuade and assist private industry in going into those areas. If they do, they will not only be helping employment and making an economic contribution to the well-being of those areas, but they will be helping to solve a grave social problem.
Several hon. Members have referred to the importance of communications in relation to industry. One of the difficulties of rural areas in establishing light industries is that frequently the communication services which they can offer are not equal to those in other areas. All I would ask the Government is to ensure that they do all they can to avoid any worsening in communication services in rural areas during the next few years. During the last two or three years there has been a reduction in our bus services, the closing down of local railways lines and threats of further closures. If this trend continues at the rate of the last few years the problem will be accentuated and it will be far more difficult to attract light industries.
If, in a moderate way, some light industries could be established in rural areas it would soon be demonstrated that they were a sound economic proposition. They would grow and extend in a way which perhaps it is difficult to imagine at the moment. In the few rural areas where light industries have been established during recent years they have flourished and been an economic and social success.
I urge the Government to give far more specific indications of the help that they will give towards encouraging light industries in these areas.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I should like to join with other hon. Members in paying a well-deserved compliment to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) for the attractive and incisive way in which he opened the debate. I feel that the debate has benefited from his speech.
I agree with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) that our debates on Welsh affairs clearly improve from being shortened, both as to subject and time. In the past, we have had portmanteau debates on a whole range of Welsh questions which have produced a diffuse, inchoate and inconclusive result. I hope that in future it will be possible to organise Welsh debates in a series of fairly short debates, each one specifically concerned with a definite subject like this one.
I wish to refer briefly to the problem of unemployment in Northern Wales and in Caernarvonshire. I promise not to keep the House very long on what is probably a peculiarly constituency matter. The fact is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) has said, that we have in southern Caernarvonshire still the highest average unemployment in the whole of Great Britain. The average for the whole of the county is 7 per cent. In southern Caernarvonshire, which is really a county in itself, it is between 10 per cent. and 11 per cent.—even now at the height of the summer season when, notionally, we should expect a considerable drop in the number of unemployed. It is not occurring, however, and that fact is very suggestive. It points to a fundamental, deep-seated weakness of our industrial economy in that part of Wales.
The major reason, as the Minister well knows, is the decline of the traditional slate and roadstone quarrying industry. We have repeatedly raised this matter in the House, and I want to do so again. I cannot see why the Government do not institute an authoritative and full-scale inquiry into the present position and future prospects of this famous Welsh industry on which substantial communities have depended for so many generations.
That is one thing which I hope the Minister will seriously reconsider. The second thing, obviously, is to drive on with the efforts to introduce completely new industry into these declining slate and granite areas.
I join with other hon. Members on both sides of the House in paying my meed of praise to the sincerity of the Minister of State who has been extremely anxious to meet everybody concerned in the unemployment areas and to discuss with them possibilities of rehabilitation. He has been most active in travelling about Wales on this kind of business. He is the Minister's mobile reserve, and there is something to be said for such an appointment, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen that that will not lead to a solution of the chronic problems we have in North-West Wales, nor, indeed, South-West Wales. The Minister of State, howsoever mobile, has no powers. There may now be a few more powers behind the efforts of the Minister and his superior in the passage of the somewhat slight Distribution of Industry Act and also in what is contained in the statement made by the President of the Board of Trade in answer to a Question yesterday.
I want to pick up here a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty, who quite rightly stressed the importance of strongly discouraging the piling up of industry in conurbations which are already almost intolerably overcrowded with industry and population, and of pushing such industry into the perimeter which for many years has been at the back of the queue for work and livelihood.
Figures obtained from the President of the Board of Trade on 22nd April this year, show that since 1951, after the accession to power of this Government, the amount of industrial development in Development Areas has gone down and the amount of industrial building in the Home Counties has gone up. I have made my own calculations based on the official figures, and I find that between 1951 and 1957 inclusive the amount of industrial building sanctioned for the Home Counties was almost as much as the amount sanctioned for the whole of Great Britain put together, 51 million sq. ft., as compared with 62 million sq. ft.
That is a deliberate contribution to the continued disbalance of industry and economy and population. Surely it should be possible to redress that disbalance at least partially so that areas which have been pining and declining for lack of a moderate amount of new industry may now enjoy that boon.
Let me briefly ask the Minister two or three questions related to southern Caernarvonshire. First, may I ask him whether he can tell us something tonight of the progress of the negotiations about the new chemical works proposed at Glynllifon Park, near Caernarvon? A splendid firm is interested in this site, but we are a little worried because the local rivers board has now, after two years of acquiescence, suddenly decided to call in a water consultant. There is plenty of water in Snowdonia, and I should not imagine that we would squabble about how to get it: there is plenty still left in spite of Liverpool Corporation and the Minister for Welsh Affairs.
The second question I want to raise is this. The Minister of Agriculture made an announcement last week, about the development of forestry and said that that would be related to employment needs in certain areas in Wales and Scotland. That is an excellent idea, which we have been pressing from these benches for the past few years. May I ask whether Wales will have a proper timber industry now? We have plenty of forestry, and a good deal of the thanks for this is due to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), the Father of the House, who, as a Commissioner, pressed this policy in Wales and followed in this matter in the direct line of the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen.
Although we have forests galore I do not think that we have a single power mill in Wales. All we do is the planting and felling, while the processing and finishing are done over the Border.

Mrs. Eirene White: There is one in Flintshire.

Mr. George Thomas: There is one at Cardiff. Thomas Owen's, at Cardiff.

Mr. Roberts: Let me put it like this. We have 50,000 acres of forests. We

have only 4,500 workers engaged in forestry. If we had the processing and the finishing connected to these vast and beautiful forests then it would not be only 4,500 workers engaged at work on 50,000 acres of land, but more like 40,000.
The third point I want to make is this. When the Minister of State paid a visit to southern Caernarvonshire in the spring, and most courteously talked to us about our problems, we gave him a memorandum of practical suggestions. May I ask whether we now may expect a reply to that memorandum, in particular to a suggestion which was made then to him and his advisers that a new factory, built with Development Commission funds, in the way my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) suggested, should be put up in the town of Pwllheli? We have an industrialist. He is a local man who is anxious to expand. Having heard from the Board of Trade for so long the argument—the excuse—that it is difficult to find an industrialist to come to North-West Wales, surely, now that we have produced the man, the Minister can produce the factory.

6.40 p.m.

Mr. Tudor Watkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) concentrated his efforts on the situation which has arisen as a result of unemployment in Wales. I am happy in the fact that there is no unemployment as such in my constituency, but I am anxious about the industrial fringes. I therefore want to try to stimulate interest in the problem of school-leavers in Mid-Wales, which I think is very important.
The excellent Carr Report entitled "Training for Skill" states that by the peak year from 1956 there will be an increase in the number of young people leaving school at the age of 18 of 109 per cent. I would say that the stork went into the rural areas as well as the industrial areas and therefore there will be what is now known as "the bulge" in the rural districts as well as the industrial districts. The problem already exists in the rural areas of Mid-Wales.
The important point is that when youngsters become unemployed they leave the area altogether. That accounts for the fact that there are no unemployment figures. The memoranda of the Council of Wales have featured this fact a great


deal. The first memorandum stressed that the migration took place among those aged from 15 to 34 years. The second memorandum presented a survey of the counties of Mid-Wales and reported, for instance, that among grammar school leavers only one in five had even a limited prospect of advancement. The others were obliged to leave the area. One half of the secondary modern school leavers had no prospect at all of advancement.
The report on Mid-Wales also recorded the dreary fact that of ten parishes in Radnorshire five had no occupiers of farms who were under 30 years of age. In the remaining parishes there were only nine such occupiers. There were 60 occupiers over 70 years of age in the ten parishes. In fact, there were practically no young people but only an aged population.
I made researches in 15 or 16 parishes in North Breconshire and Radnorshire and I found the alarming situation that if the same proportionate decrease of electors continues in the next six years as in the last three years, some of these parishes will have no electors at all. In reply to a Question yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Flint. East (Mrs. White) was told that on 16th June unemployed boys under the age of 18 represented 2·8 per cent. for boys and 3·8 per cent. for girls. Those figures show that girls under 18 are unemployed in greater proportion than is represented by the total unemployed in the whole of Wales. This is an alarming picture.
I remember the Welsh Labour Group raising with the Minister for Welsh Affairs in an interview some time ago the question of the number of boys and girls who had left Wales for work outside the country. I had the alarming answer from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour that between May, 1955, and May, 1956, 1,200 boys and 1,200 girls under the age of 20 previously in employment had left Wales altogether. Are we beginning to go back to a situation in which we shall have migration on a large scale once again?
The youth employment officer for Radnorshire tells me that the employment situation facing school-leavers at present is worse than it has been since 1950. During the four months ending 31st May, unemployment benefit and National

Assistance allowances were paid to 359 young persons in Breconshire whereas the figure for the same period twelve months earlier was 209 persons. Those are the up-to-date facts about rural depopulation. It would be far better if prospects of employment at home were provided for these young persons rather than that we should have paid out from the Exchequer or from the National Insurance Fund a sum of £513 during those months.
What a prospect this is for school-leavers between now and the peak year of the "bulge". What a prospect for those who are now unemployed. The figures given yesterday were that 92 young people under 20 years of age have been unemployed for over six months and 258 have been unemployed for between three and six months in Wales up to 27th June.
What can be done about this situation? I should like to offer some suggestion. Every ambitious boy and girl is faced with the prospect of leaving home in these Welsh rural counties. I suggest, first, that we should use the Youth Employment Service far more than it is being used at present in the rural areas. Excellent work is done by the officers of this service but I should like to see even more work done. The service could be used to greater advantage in the rural areas. These young people live many miles away from any centre where the range of information and possibilities of employment in the area is known.
I understand that the careers advisory officers visit schools twice a year. I suggest that they should visit them twice a term, since one visit is usually connected with talks and the other with interviews. In Radnorshire, 50 per cent. of the youngsters leaving school this summer term from the secondary modern schools have no chance at all of employment. They could be directed in many ways to useful work. Their attention could also be called to the training allowance scheme, which is excellent, though I believe that that scheme should be less restricted in the rural areas than it is in the industrial areas. I quote a classical example. The young person who makes an application for a grant cannot receive one if there are local applicants in the vacancy area. It follows, therefore, that as the "bulge" grows greater there will be less likelihood of vacancies in those areas in the


future. I hope that the Minister of Labour will look at that point.
There is another matter of great importance to young people in these areas. Despite the facilities for training, there are no facilities for technical education in Mid-Wales except in Newtown, Aberystwyth and at Felinfach in Cardiganshire. There is nothing in the whole of Merionethshire or Radnorshire or in the rural parts of Breconshire. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) has already mentioned the important matter of transport difficulties. The decay of economic and social life in Mid-Wales is not conducive to the development of a transport service. Attention should be given to this matter.
What is the basic requirement in connection with school-leavers in any part of the country? May I suggest that those who leave school should not only be able to find work in their own areas, or even in their own counties, or in Wales, but should have an opportunity to be trained in industry to be really skilled in accordance with their abilities and aptitudes. This is denied to the young people of Mid-Wales.
I was glad, as other hon. Members have been, to find a reference in the last sentence of the announcement made by the President of the Board of Trade to the Distribution of Industry Act. Ever since I have been in this House I have studied the work of the Development Commission and asked Questions. For some time I have not been enamoured of its work on industries in Wales, but I hope that in view of yesterday's announcement there will be an impetus given to the Association to do something in that respect.
The Government White Paper of 1957 on action in Wales expressed some doubt in paragraph 5 as follows:
There has been a good deal at doubt as to the success with which industries could be established in the remoter and more rural parts of Wales.
I hope this will not frighten industrialists, because no one has suggested having industries in the remoter parts of Wales. Indeed, some of us would like to get industries in the centres. This is being tackled by the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association, which I am glad has been set up. I should like here to pay a tribute to Professor Beacham,

not only for presiding over the Association but for his excellent articles in the Press and his addresses to the people concerned. I also wish to thank the Secretary, Mr. Peter Garbett-Edwards, for the really hard work he has been doing in this respect.
Now I have something to say to my good friend Lord Brecon. Incidentally, I was the only one not called to speak during the previous Welsh debate, otherwise I would have disagreed with what my colleagues said about him. I am glad they have changed their minds because I have known Lord Brecon since the days when I served with him on the Breconshire County Council. He is a tough one in political warfare, and if he can put as much into this job as he did in trying to stop me from coming to this House, he will do excellent work.
I ask him, therefore, to look on the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association with a kindly eye, to give it guidance, and at every opportunity to use his position as Minister of State to stimulate the local authorities to do two things: first, to prepare sites for industries; secondly, to gamble on providing services for industries. The key to the problem facing young people in Mid-Wales is the provision of new industries which are so urgently required. Therefore I hope that Lord Brecon, with the aid of the other Government Departments, will stimulate local authorities and give guidance to the Mid-Wales Industrial Development Association. In that respect I hope he will be able to convey to the local authorities, even if he has to call those in Mid-Wales together, the real requirements of industrialists who may want to go there but have not sufficient information.
I also suggest that in Mid-Wales we should not concentrate on large units of industry but should try to get a diversity of industries employing at the outset up to a maximum of fifty people. From the Report of the Rural Wales Committee I know that great emphasis has been placed on forestry for the future. I know that from one aspect forestry is a great national asset, but I cannot agree that this will be the solution of the problem facing youngsters in Mid-Wales. It is estimated that for every fifty acres one man is employed in afforestation, and that is not sufficient.
If I may offer a word of criticism to the Forestry Commission, through the Minister, it is that I think it made a big mistake to contract out the thinning of forests to private interests. This has not been a success. In one establishment close to my constituency too much Irish labour has been employed, to the disadvantage of local labour, and had the Forestry Commission been doing this work, it would have been careful to select local labour. To the Rural Wales Committee I say, "Leave the philosophical aspect of your Reports and get down to brass tacks." I am sure the Committee will do that if it is stimulated by Lord Brecon and the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs.
There are two other matters I want to raise. The first is for the Minister of Labour and concerns craftsmen in rural districts. Up to now, the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to grant deferment to any workers in our rural industries who are connected with food production. At the same time, woodworkers and carpenters are employed in connection with food production and they do not get deferment. However, with the coming into operation of the farm improvement schemes, grants will be given for new buildings and for reconditioning farm buildings, for which more carpenters and woodworkers will be needed. Yet these people are still being called up for National Service. If we call up skilled persons, even if they are apprentices at the end of their training, perhaps two or three workers will be lost from one small concern or business.
Finally I want to draw attention to the apprentices in the clock and watchmaking factories near Ystradgynlais. I appeal to Lord Brecon to consider whether something can be done to consolidate the industry. I am nervous about two things which are happening. First, there has been a change from the habit of using pocket watches and, therefore, skilled people are needed for making the new type of watch. Secondly, with the prospect of a European Free Trade Area there will be keen competition in the light industries, not only in Ystradgynlais but in other parts of Wales. If skilled people, trained by the industry, are called up for service in the Armed Forces, the consolidation of industry will be more difficult. I stress this point because those factories now employ 1,800 people. Not

only that, but they employ a greater percentage of disabled persons than any other factory. You can see, Mr. Speaker, how important it is to ensure that ex-apprentices are not called up, and so I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to look into this point.

6.59 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: It is not altogether without significance that yesterday we had the announcement of the method by which the Distribution of Industry Act is to work, that we have had an announcement about the resumption of preparatory work on the Severn Bridge and that we have been told something about road works in South Wales. There is a well-known classical tag to the effect that one should beware of those who come bearing gifts. Having a rather suspicious feminine nature, I am hoping that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister for Welsh Affairs will not think that these announcements, welcome as they are so far as they go, are in any sense a substitute for the announcement that we really want from him about the steel strip mill.
The right hon. Gentleman may not be in a position to say anything about that today, but it is clear from all the representations we have made, and the representations that I myself was instructed to make to the Prime Minister not long ago, that a decision on this matter is by now overdue. It is extremely important for our colleagues in South Wales to know where they stand in this matter and whether or not this is to come to us. I say that in the full consciousness that I have my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) at my side.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Not on my hon. Friend's side.

Mrs. White: Both of us should know what the decision on this extremely important matter is to be.
I think the chief criticism that we can fairly make of the Government, and I am speaking now not of the immediate past but of the administration in general, is the slowness with which they have tackled some of these problems. We are extremely distressed about the situation in South-West Wales. There is nothing whatever new about it. It has been known for years and years that the situation which


has now arisen would arise, and, therefore, I think we are entitled to say that plans should have been made earlier for the relief of unemployment in that area, and that we should not have had to wait until a few months ago for the four-member Commission to look into it. Those of us who represent areas which have not by any means the same acute degree of unemployment are fully justified in saying that we are anxious that there should be greater forethought as to possible developments in areas which, at the moment, do not have the very high rate of unemployment which affects so tragically some of our colleagues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has pointed out the position in Cardiff, and we want to know what the future of Cardiff is to be. In Flintshire, we do not have such an acute unemployment problem as in North-West Wales, but we are very much concerned about the future of the ancient Borough of Flint, which is dependent so very largely on the textile industry and which is suffering from a recession. We usually think of textiles as affecting only Lancashire, but I should like to remind the House that we in North Wales, and in my own constituency in particular, have been very seriously affected by the general recession in the textile industry.
One of our largest factories has been closed entirely and other factories are working on short time, varying from one factory to another from one week off in ten to one week off in four. There have been considerable dismissals of labour, not all of which are evident from the figures of unemployment. I was given in a Written Answer yesterday the most recent figures of unemployment in Flintshire and one cannot be unconcerned to find that nearly 1,500 people are unemployed, of whom 568 have been unemployed for longer than three months, and this at a time when we have the highest seasonal employment in the seaside towns at the other end of the county. We shall lose a great many of these seasonal jobs as the autumn draws on. Even more disturbing is the fact that the number of unfilled vacancies this year is fewer than 400, where as two years ago for the same period of the year the figure was approaching 1,000.
We know that within the next few months there will be further closures of Service establishments, and this is something which concerns us very much in a number of parts of Wales. Owing to the change in defence policy, the Service establishments are being closed down. It is true that established civilian workers there may be offered employment in other parts of the country, but even to them that must be disturbing. Housing arrangements, educational arrangements for their children, and so on, are such that they hesitate very much before accepting employment offered, whereas in the case of unestablished workers no such arrangements can be expected.
I should like to know whether, in these circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman is taking any active steps to "chivvy" the Service Departments to find out what they intend to do with the establishments which they are closing and vacating. We have in Flintshire a large maintenance unit which is to be closed down. I have tried to find out from the Air Ministry what it is going to do about it. I believe that it will have to go through a very long process, possibly because of the example of Crichel Down, and offer to give the land back to the original owners. If this is to drag on month after month, there will be this hiatus, and, possibly, a site for industry will be left unused.
We have also a very large American Air Force base which has been vacated by the American Air Force, part of which will be used by the Royal Air Force. It is very doubtful indeed whether, in fact, the R.A.F. will be able to use the whole of this very considerable establishment, which is ideally situated for industrial development. There is also a large factory in Flint which has been closed, and we have no idea what plans there are for its future use.
Although we are not, and cannot pretend to be, in such an extremely difficult situation as is North-West or South-West Wales, we are nevertheless anxious, and I should like to stress the fact that the official figures of unemployment do not give the full picture, partly because we have a great many women workers in textiles who do not draw unemployment benefit because they are not insured. They do not sign on at the employment exchanges, because they know that there is no work for them


in the neighbourhood. If there was work, they would apply for it, but, knowing that there is not, they do not go to the employment exchanges week by week, and, therefore, simply do not appear in the figures.
Similarly, we have a number of men, some of whom have just reached pension age, who have also been dismissed. In view of the modern ideas that these men should be encouraged to continue in work, and the National Insurance arrangements encourage them to continue in the type of work they have been doing, which is suitable for older persons, once again they are drawing their retirement pensions, and as they know that no suitable work is available, they do not register at the exchanges, and therefore their numbers do not appear in the figures at all. The decrease in the family income, with the consequent effect on retail trade, for example, in the area, is just the same, even though they are not included in the official statistics.
I can only reiterate that, although our position is not as bad as that in some other areas, it is nevertheless serious. It is one which causes us considerable concern. We are very much concerned about the future of the buildings which are round us standing vacant for all to see, which have a discouraging effect on people without work and who have no immediate prospect of work. I know that Government Departments are aware that we have at least one, admittedly small, industrialist who wants to expand, and who wanted a building to which he could move which would provide work for women and girls, just the type of work in which we are lacking. He has bombarded one Government Department after another with letters in the last few months, and so far has got nowhere at all. His epistolary style is not exactly conventional, but I do not think that that should be held against him. I hope very much that something will be done in the fairly near future to see that a chance is given to someone who wishes to be enterprising and provide exactly the type of work which we need in our area.
There is one other topic on which I wish to touch, and that is the question of technical education in Flintshire. I do not propose to go into the whole vexed question of the Flintshire Technical College. That has had a long history,

and there has been an investigation by a committee under Sir Hugh Chance, which has reported to the Minister of Education, who has accepted the report. That report was a very deep disappointment indeed to the County of Flint, and I think that it was an ungenerous report to Flintshire. On another occasion, I should like to have the opportunity of going into the matter more fully.
I should like to say that I have had representations from a number of students at the technical college who will not be allowed, under the terms of this report, to continue to an advanced level of education in their own localities, but will have to travel very much further to some other technical college to take the advanced courses which they thought they would be allowed to take in Flintshire. I have also had representations from industrialists in the area, who tell me that they are likely to be placed in very great difficulty if their employees are obliged to travel further in order to take up advanced technical education.
I want to refer to one or two passages from a letter which I have received from the manager of the large works of the De Havilland Aircraft Company, which are in Flintshire. He says that he is having to give serious thought as to whether in future he will not have to initiate a new policy and not accept engineering students from Flintshire. He adds:
It seems to me, however, most undesirable that I should need to consider such a course, for we have obtained much excellent material from North Wales, and I feel it would be gravely wrong to deprive boys from this county of the chance of a career in Engineering.
That is a very serious statement to those of us who want the young people of Flintshire to have the best possible chance of a career in modern industry.
We have also been told that Flintshire is not to be allowed to have a sandwich course in metallurgy, which it had hoped to have, but that the students must go to Birmingham. We have one of the largest and most progressive steel works in the country which undertakes advanced work in metallurgy and it seems most regrettable—and I know that the chief metallurgist of the works—John Summers and Sons—shares this opinion—that we should not be allowed to have a sandwich course in metallurgy, or in


chemistry, upon which we have already embarked with some success.
I mention those things because they are of considerable local interest. I do not wish to go into the more controversial matters which have been discussed in the past in relation to the technical college. I simply want to stress that Flintshire is an expanding industrial area and we are extremely anxious that we should have adequate provision in the county for technical education and that we do not damage the prospects of our young people by depriving them of opportunities, or by asking them to travel so far that it is unreasonable to expect them to undertake their studies when they are tired after a day's work, and so far that it is unreasonable for employers to have to release them so early that time is lost because of the distances involved.
While we are grateful for what the Government are promising—so far as it goes—I would not like the Minister for one moment to think that we are satisfied, nor that we wish him to be complacent.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Percy Morris: I support the eloquent and almost moving plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas). We do not have the same difficulties at Swansea, in respect of wet docks, but the position with the dry docks is comparable. This is a longstanding grievance and we beg the right hon. Gentleman to do everything he possibly can to solve the problem.
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins). I have occasion to visit his constituency. It seems more like a continent than a constituency and we sometimes marvel at how he is able to cover the whole ground. While the problem of school-leavers, to which he referred, is very difficult in the industrial areas, I can well believe that it is exceptionally difficult in rural areas.
The Government are having quite a good day today. It seems that my hon. and right hon. Friends have come to the conclusion that more flies are caught with sugar than with vinegar. That may

be true, but we must remind the right hon. Gentleman that many of the difficulties which are confronting us today are due to the failure of the present Government and pre-war Conservative Governments.
If Press forecasts of Government action in Wales are fulfilled, today should prove one of the most encouraging days which hon. and right hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies have had for a very long time. I wish the Government had not persisted in dragging their feet. It is obviously true that nothing develops except under pressure, and I am glad to think that at long last the pressure which we have put on the Government is likely to bear fruit—at least, we hope so.
Today's Western Mail states:
The long-awaited Government proposals for aiding pockets of local unemployment prove to be more helpful than many had dared hope. These are sweeping powers which mark the Government's determination to conquer problems which have hit Wales particularly hard. They represent a triumph of commonsense and common humanity over any dogmatic reluctance to direct new industrial building. They are in the main stream of Conservative efforts to eliminate local unemployment along the lines set by the Distressed Areas and Special Areas schemes of before the War.
If that is the case, will the Minister explain why this "triumph of common sense and common humanity" is of such a belated character?
If these powers had been exercised only three years ago, much misery and anxiety would have been avoided. An average of 6 to 8 per cent. unemployed in North Wales and slightly less in other areas is something of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed. It is a scandal that compact communities have been in danger of total eclipse.
The only committee which seems to have brought the Government down to earth, or, to change the metaphor, to brass tacks is the committee which we now know as the four-man team. That Committee went to the South-West Wales area and, after a brief but presumably very thorough examination, came to the conclusion that there was no hope in the major industries in South-West Wales, but only in diversification. The mechanisation and modernisation of the steel and tinplate industries have made it abundantly clear that we can have no more works of that kind and that if we are to


cater for the unemployed, there must be much greater diversification.
I ask the Minister whether the Lloyd Committee came to the same conclusion. If so, why did not the Government implement its recommendations? If they decided to leave things as they stood and hope for the best, why have they not told us that? What prevents the Government taking hon. Members from Wales into their confidence and letting us know precisely what these various committees found and what their conclusions were?
We are very suspicious that the Lloyd Committee made recommendations which would have forestalled many of the difficulties which we are now trying to solve, unfortunately, we have failed to elicit any authentic information and I do not suppose that the Minister will be much more forthcoming tonight.
Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what has happened to the Reports of the Council for Wales? He has paid tribute to that Council on more than one occasion. The members of the Council have spent not only days but weeks on drafting reports and recommendations. What surprises me is that they have not resigned and given up the task. Will the Minister say what he thinks of the Council for Wales and its recommendations and which of them he proposes to adopt? Will he tell us whether he thinks it worth while to keep these people working in this way if he pays very little heed to their recommendations?
Reference has been made by hon. Members from North and South Wales to the question of the location of the strip mill. Do the Government appreciate the gnawing anxiety in the minds of men engaged in that industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us categorically whether the Government have definitely decided that they will allow the mill to be erected? If so, when and where? If he cannot give us a definite reply to either of those questions, will he tell us what prevents him from doing so? If certain economic considerations have to be examined, what are they? What hinders him from coming to a definite conclusion? The Minister of Power promised us a reply months ago, and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has taken deputation after deputation to the Minister, putting the case to him and pleading with him to let us have some definite information.
We are sometimes inclined to feel that the Government are trifling with these men, who have spent a lifetime in this very important industry. It is a great shame that compact communities are in danger of eclipse. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) referred to the overspill from Birmingham, the Midlands and elsewhere. If the Tory Government had faced their obligations before the war there would not now be thousands of men from Wales in Birmingham, the Midlands and Slough. They would be in their own country and our own industries would have been developed. The programme which the Government are now proposing is eight, ten or more years late.
A promise has been made that if a case is made out we may receive financial assistance for the building of other than industrial buildings. The Minister knows that Swansea is an industrial centre, but it is also a seaport, and it was a very badly blitzed town. One of our greatest handicaps today is the lack of first-class hotel accommodation. Those engaged in the hotel industry have told us that the cost of building and equipping a really good hotel is extremely high. If we can put forward a good case, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it and prevail upon the President of the Board of Trade to lend us a helping hand?
These are just a few of the difficulties with which we are having to cope year after year. I ask the Minister to tell us tonight what definite plan he has in view. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch), who opened the debate, said that we had heard words in the House, and had read promises, but what we really required above everything else were actual deeds. Let the Government implement their promises and bring hope to those who are now unemployed, not merely in South-West Wales but in the whole of Wales. If the Government look at the picture as a whole they must feel that there is a great deal of work for them to do, and the quicker they do it the better. We shall then be more inclined to believe that the Tory Government are interested in the people of Wales.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. D. L. Mort: I want to deal with an aspect of the problem as it affects South-West Wales. The House will probably agree that for many


years I have taken upon myself the obligation of speaking in this House on behalf of the steel worker and the tinplate worker. I re-echo the sentiments of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. P. Morris) when I say that not only have Members on this side of the House but also hon. Members opposite expressed grave disappointment at the fact that the Government have not made any preparations. My Committee has been referred to. I cannot give the details of its report, because it is private, but we know that it was set up to deal as best it could with the situation.
There is an element of urgency about the matter. These loyal men who have invested their lives in the production of tinplate and steel, and have been building up our industrial prosperity in the process, has now been idle for six or seven months. We welcome the Government's proposals which were announced yesterday, but they represent a long-term policy. We cannot solve this question merely by putting a works in the backyard overnight. It will take time. I suggest that the Government should now encourage those local authorities which are prepared to clear sites of derelict works.
I do not want a repetition in my constituency of the conditions which exist in Landore. Recently, I was travelling in a train with an American, who said, "Old Hitler did a good job here". I said, "That happened a long time before Hitler came along." We do not want that in my constituency. I am pleased to hear from Lord Brecon that some firms are undertaking the clearance of these sites, but progressive corporations should also be allowed to do the work. The Cwmvelyn works, in Swansea, cover a large area. It could be cleared, and houses or other large buildings could be built upon it. I hope that the Government will take these suggestions into account.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwelty (Mr. Finch) said, the people about whom we are expressing concern are mainly between 50 and 55 years of age. That is a very awkward age for men to be put on the idle list, but there they are. I appeal to the Government not to allow hope to die in the hearts of those noble men—and they are noble men; they are good men—who have built up the communities in which they

now live. Let us have some action now, so that the problem will eventually solve itself by the erection of new factories.
There are many difficulties about taking a decision on the question of the strip mill. I suggest that when the matter is being considered the question of a possible splitting up of the factory should be taken into account. There might be a split between the producing end and the finishing end. When Margam was being built it was felt that the most logical thing would be to have an integrated plan, and that everything should be put together in Margam, but the Labour Government said, "No; a sociological problem is involved in this." The project was split up, and we had Velindre and Trostra. It meant a little increase in the price of a box of tin, but the reply of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) and Sir Stafford Cripps was, "Our job is to solve the sociological problem."
As my hon. Friend said, there is an obligation upon the Government to maintain the community life of Wales. The Government spend a lot of money on the preservation of ancient monuments. Let us preserve the communities—not as ancient monuments, but as great living centres where cultures have developed. If that is done it will bring a ray of hope into the lives of those men—lives which are now very darkened and dismayed.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: The Minister for Housing and Local Government and the Minister for Welsh Affairs has listened to every word spoken in the debate. During the past few days I seem to have met him frequently within the capital City of Cardiff. He has manifested a lively interest in the affairs of the city. I am very glad that he took such an active interest in the events of last week. The hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn), who had the privilege of being called first among hon. Members opposite—and whom we have not seen since—referred to the fact that the racing track at Cardiff is being pulled up. It is a sad commentary upon our values when a track for the training of athletes in the Principality is torn up to make way for a dog racing track—

Mr. J. Griffiths: And bookies.

Mr. Thomas: —and people who seem to have the wrong social values.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North did the right thing in raising this question. I am very glad to see that he has now returned. I had just referred to him, and had said that we had not seen him since he made his speech. Now we have seen him.
I ask the Minister not to be in a hurry to turn down his hon. Friend's appeal. If he is unable to give a favourable reply tonight, I hope that he will at least leave the door open. The events of last week have created a new interest in athletics in general among the people of the Principality. It is a good thing for our young people to have these sporting facilities at their disposal. In the City of Cardiff we have not been unduly troubled by problems of Teddy boys and their excesses, although we have had our natural share, as a great city. This House ought to give every possible encouragement to those who are seeking to provide opportunities for the healthy development of our young people. On this issue I readily join with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North who represents me—and sometimes misrepresents me—in this House.
I now turn to the problem which unites all those who have the privilege of representing the people of the great City of Cardiff. The four Members who represent the people of Cardiff have taken part in the debate. The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) represents the northern fringe of our city, and there are the other three of us. Everyone who touches the life of the city at all—regardless of his politics—is disturbed by the way in which the docks are rotting away. We have some of the best labour in the world. It is adaptable, but nearly 1,000 skilled engineers are now without work in the city. It is a dangerous situation.
I want to be constructive in my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) referred to Sir Herbert Merrett's proposals in regard to the extension of new industry. I am convinced that only by an increase in the light engineering industry, and all those industries which require export trade, is there any real hope for the future of our docks. I made

this quite clear in an Adjournment debate a little while ago, when, in common with everybody else, I mentioned the injustice of the inequality of charges at Cardiff as compared with other ports. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that even when that problem is settled, Cardiff Docks will not automatically become prosperous.
I wish to ask the Minister what positive steps he can say that the Government have taken—through the nationalised industries, if hon. Members wish—during the past twelve months to restore vitality to Cardiff Docks. Have they consulted the British Transport Commission since the last Adjournment debate in the House when it was suggested that the Commission has now decided to write off Cardiff Docks as an effective unit of the South Wales ports? The announcement to spend £1 million at Swansea, which as good Welshmen we all welcome, and a similar expenditure at Newport and expenditure on the other ports, makes it all the more significant that Cardiff should be told, "Increase your trade first, and then we will improve the facilities." It is not fair to a proud port and a worthy people, and I earnestly hope the Minister will give us some Indication of the proposals he has in mind.
One of our misfortunes has been that the recovery of Welsh industrial activity during the post-war years has of necessity been due to secondary industries being introduced into the life of the Principality. We shall always be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) for the way in which he guided industries to South Wales. We saw the Treforest Trading Estate grow, and we have seen the Cardiff Trading Estate grow; and I am grateful to those in the present Administration who have helped and encouraged industry to come to South Wales. But, when the first breath of recession reaches our people, it is the secondary industries which suffer. That is why the average unemployment for Wales is higher than it is here.

Mr. Douglas Glover: No.

Mr. Thomas: Of course it is. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Glover) says "No". I do not know whether he has


any better idea to advance, but if he has I will give way to him.
Undoubtedly, secondary industries belonging to major concerns in England have been closed. Will the Minister also tell us what he has been able to do about the Royal Ordnance Factory at Cardiff, a magnificent factory space where skilled labour is available? Are there now real prospects of good, substantial heavy industry being introduced there? What of the other factories which have been closed? I understand that the last furniture factory in Cardiff is to close this month. There skilled labour was employed.
Parliament is about to have a Recess of three months and that is why, earlier, I took advantage of the opportunity to protest against a long Recess. But I am glad that we are having this debate on Welsh affairs because it will give the Minister, I hope, an opportunity to tell us what proposals there are, not only for the North—if the Press is right he may have good things for the North—but also for the South. Above all, Welsh people ask only for the right to work. It is a basic human right, and we, understandably, are deeply grieved by the prospect of unemployment among our people.
There are good people in Cardiff, skilled craftsmen and unskilled people, who for many months have been queueing at the employment exchanges. As the Minister knows, the official figure for unemployment is about 3,500, but, counting those who do not sign the register, it is well over 4,000 in the city. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give urgent consideration to the plight of Cardiff.
To conclude, I would like it to be known that those who have the privilege of representing that great city share the concern of those in the North-West and the South-West about the employment of our people there. We are grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr Finch) who in so striking and human a fashion has tonight advanced the natural demands of Wales.

7.41 p.m.

The Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs (Mr. Henry Brooke): I should like sincerely to thank every one of the hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.

I thoroughly agree that this has been a much better and more practical debate than some debates on Welsh affairs to which I have listened in the past. It has been more coherent and more consolidated—which perhaps is appropriate considering that, technically, we are debating the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill.
I hope that I shall be able to play my part, not by reading out a set reply—that seems to me to be an unsuitable course to take—but by trying to reply to as many as possible of the points which have been raised, and trying, if I can, to cover the whole of Wales. If I fail in any particular perhaps the hon. Member concerned will communicate with me, and then I will pursue the matter by writing to him.
One of the reasons I think that previous Welsh debates have not been as fruitful as they might have been is that the Annual Report on Developments and Government Action in Wales has tended to be published so many months after the end of the year. Following the suggestion I made during the last Welsh debate, I am proposing to publish the next Report for the eighteen months ending 31st December, and to do so early in the new year. I am advised that it will be far easier to secure early publication if in future the figures are based on the calendar year and not on the twelve months ending in June. There will not be the holiday period intervening just after 30th June as there has been. I trust that in that way one can make some contribution to rendering our future debates more practical and up to date.
There is another noticeable difference between this debate and the last one. During the last debate derision was poured by almost every hon. Member opposite on the appointment of a certain Mr. Lewis to be Minister of State. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Watkins) did not have a chance to speak then or I believe that he would have corrected the balance.

Mr. G. Thomas: In his tweed suit.

Mr. Brooke: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) said, "in his tweed suit"; but Mr. Lewis, as soon as he became Lord Brecon, took off his coat and got down to work.

Mr. Thomas: I did not mention Lord Brecon, but I intended to. I gladly agree with what the Minister has now said. I know that Lord Brecon has endeavoured to serve the Principality as his friends said he would.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for what he said about me personally a moment ago, and I am glad that in neither this debate nor, so far as I know, anywhere in Wales, has anything but praise been voiced in recent months for the service that the Minister of State has given.
We are rightly debating the unemployment situation in Wales. By comparison with the 1920s and 1930s there has been a transformation in the problem. If hon. Members will cast their minds back to those days and even to the war-time years, they will recall that 97 per cent. of employment and 3 per cent. of unemployment was taken, in common parlance, as full employment. We are now discussing a situation where there is 96·3 per cent. employment and 3·7 per cent. unemployment, but not for one moment do I demur at our doing it. I think it entirely right that Parliament should thus spend its time.
There has been this transformation for the better since before the war, but, nevertheless, certain local difficulties have persisted. I would say to hon. Members opposite, who have made large claims for what their party did when in office, that neither they nor any of us have yet at any time satisfactorily solved the unemployment problem of Gwynedd, the difficulties of the depopulation of Mid-Wales or the difficulties besetting Pembroke Docks, for as long as any of us can remember. In fact, the lowest figure for unemployment in Wales at any time was under the Conservative Government three years ago, in 1955, when the total fell to about 13,000 and the percentage was 1·4, Now we are dealing with a new position, aggravated particularly by the closing of the hand tinplate and sheet mills and the steel works that serve them in west South-Wales.
Everyone knew that this closure would have to happen one day. Everyone hoped, I think reasonably, that the old mills would go out one by one over a period. What has accentuated our difficulties

and created sadness in that area is the suddenness of the blow. There is no doubt that these closures are the reverse side of the picture, the other being the excellent fact that Wales has the finest sheet and tinplate mills in the whole country. It is because Wales is in the forefront of modernisation that the old works have had to go. Nevertheless, the human problem remains.
Fortunately, we can already see the Government's policy of stimulating new industry working there as elsewhere. I think it has been recognised in all quarters that the announcement yesterday by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has special significance for Wales. Ever since I became Minister for Welsh Affairs I have been pressed by certain people to try to get Gwynedd scheduled as a Development Area. I think we have realised as time has gone on that the scheduling and descheduling of areas was perhaps too rigid a way of dealing with these problems. The Government have now, with the help of Parliament, worked out a much more flexible system, and I have no doubt at all that this is of importance for Wales.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) for the cogent way in which he exposed the fallacy that in seeking the optimum distribution of industry one cannot wholly ignore the geographical whereabouts of unemployed men and women. We saw that fallacy stated in a leading newspaper this morning. I cannot sympathise with those who talk as if one can pick up and pack up a whole Welsh community and post it off to London or Birmingham. The Government have publicly told industry and every one the areas where in present circumstances financial assistance may be obtained under this new Act if they set up or extend their factories. We have D.A.T.A.C. prepared to consider applications. I think that hon. Members will find that industrialists now have been enabled to know where they stand and that they will have no difficulty, with the help of the Board of Trade—certainly with the help of the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs and with what help I can give—in ascertaining the possibilities. I only hope that the response will be swift and effective.
I will now seek, as it were, to take a trip round the different parts of Wales that have been mentioned and try to say something about each of them.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that point, can he say whether the excellent policy outlined by the President of the Board of Trade yesterday will be pursued, both in its positive and negative aspects resolutely, firmly and vigorously by the Government?

Mr. Brooke: I have no doubt about that. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has been with me on the Bench through a large part of the debate and I know that I have his assurance—as well as my knowledge of the intentions of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade—that the Government are determined to pursue this policy vigorously both on the positive and the negative sides. Let us remember, however, that both England and Wales are free countries, and that we can no more direct industrialists where to go than we can wish to direct labour where to go in peace-time.
With regard to Milford Haven, I have never been one to believe that a vast increase in population would take place in that area, but I have believed that, without ruining the National Park, there could be reasonable and well-planned industrial development there. In particular, the Esso refinery is going forward. The outlook for Milford Haven and Pembroke Dock is a great deal brighter than it was when we last discussed Welsh affairs, and indeed the figures show it.
Unemployment in Milford Haven is down to 6·6 per cent. and in Pembroke Dock to 4·8 per cent., but they were about 10 per cent. not very long ago. The figures are not down to what I would wish them to be, but there is an atmosphere of hope there now whereas there was an atmosphere of doubt only a recent time ago.
A much more serious problem is presented by the old tinplate area. Since the beginning of 1957, about 8,000 men have left the industry—by which I mean the steel works and the sheet and tinplate mills—and have lost their jobs. It is a tribute to the resilience of the Welsh economy that at the present time fewer

than one-quarter of those 8,000 men are unemployed. I am not saying that in any complacent way, because I accept the Report of the four-man team; I believe there are great difficulties ahead of us there. I do not think that the House needs any assurance from me that the Government take the problem of that area, the hinterland of Swansea and Llanelly, very seriously. Certainly there is no question of allowing things to drift, as one Opposition hon. Member suggested.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I should like the Minister to explain the figures. Our information is that 8,000 men have been displaced since January, 1957, and that they are being displaced all the time. Did I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that only one-quarter of them are now unemployed? The fact of the matter is that there are at this moment more than 8,000 unemployed in West Wales. Where have the 6,000 gone to? It is a rather difficult matter to understand.

Mr. Brooke: I am really speaking to put on record the fact that there is a serious unemployment problem in the area which is oversimplified by many people. It is regarded as a situation in which thousands and thousands of men have found themselves declared redundant in tinplate works and are now on the streets. In fact, large numbers of these men have already been absorbed elsewhere, and others—I am quite sure the right hon. Gentleman would tell me this if I did not mention it myself—have retired. There was quite a high age-level in that industry.
It is interesting and encouraging that such a large proportion of the men have already succeeded in getting work elsewhere, but what concerns me seriously is that, according to the findings of the four-man team, there will be other closures coming in the next eighteen months. I am certainly not seeking to look at anything through rose-coloured spectacles. It is better that we should all be perfectly frank about these matters.
A number of hon. Gentlemen have suggested that all these problems would be solved if a Government decision were taken to put the strip mill at Kidwelly. I understand that arrangements have been made for the whole question of the strip mill to be raised again by some


other hon. Gentleman from Scotland later this evening. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] So I am informed. It may be that some of the Welsh Members would wish to stay for that. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have informed the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who is standing by for that debate, of the keen interest that has been shown in that debate by a number of hon. Members. As the responsible Minister, he will be hoping to speak later, before the Bill receives its Third Reading.
All I would say here is that among the problems, and there are many, which beset the whole question of the strip mill is this, that the site at Kidwelly is on top of coal. That is not something which one can lightly disregard, because one might be sterilising a substantial national asset by putting a mill on that site. It may be that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power will go into the whole matter more deeply later on.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I do not want to discuss this matter in detail, but are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman that any site in South Wales under which there is coal is not available for industry?

Mr. Brooke: I was not seeking to say the last word on this subject, but only mentioning it, because the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) indicated to us that a decision in favour of Kidwelly ought to have been taken by now. That is one of the factors that have to be taken into account. Another factor is that if the Government were to accept the hon. Lady's argument that industrial development certificates must not be given for new industrial development where there is hardly any unemployment, that would debar the strip mill from being put in the place where the company wants to put it, near Newport. I am not urging any final conclusion but, as reference has been made to it, it seemed only proper to remind the House of some of the difficult factors which have to be taken into account.

Lady Megan Lloyd George: Is not it a fact that the greater proportion of the coal is not under the Kidwelly site, but under Carmarthen Bay?

Mr. Brooke: My information is that 200 million tons are under the site and the rest is under Carmarthen Bay, but it might be more difficult to work if the mill were put there.
In case hon. Members think that they must stay up to hear my hon. Friend, I should say that I believe they will be disappointed if they expect him suddenly, on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, to give a final answer today about where the mill is to go.

Mr. Jay: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, since we have waited months and months, how soon the Government are to reach a decision?

Mr. Brooke: I think that is a question which might be put to my hon. Friend when, having received notice that this specific matter is to be raised, he replies to that debate.

Sir Frank Soskice: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that if we wait we might hear more from his hon. Friend than we are now hearing from him? If he is not saying that, why cannot he tell us now? We want to know.

Mr. Brooke: All I am doing is informing the House that I have been made aware that another hon. Member has given notice to Mr. Speaker that he hopes to have an opportunity of raising this question later in the evening and has so notified my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary will be here to reply to that debate.

Mr. J. Griffiths: May I raise a point of order with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with apologies to Mr. Speaker, who is not at the moment in the Chair? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition yesterday raised the question of the debates that would take place and one of the questions to which he directed attention—the Leader of the House agreed to consult my right hon. Friend about it—was in relation to the selection of topics for debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill. In my experience of twenty-two years this is a novel procedure. I rise at this moment because this illustrates the difficulty to which my right hon. Friend referred. On the Consolidated Fund Bill it has always been possible for hon. Members to raise any topic and we have agreed to discuss Welsh unemployment.


A part of that problem is the question of a strip mill and now the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs, who is a member of the Cabinet, tells us that there is to be a statement about this matter—which is of vital interest and importance to many communities—later on a subject which has been selected by Mr. Speaker. The Minister referred us to that debate. This illustrates the difficulty which my right hon. Friend pointed out in the allocation of subjects in this way. I think it my duty to point that out.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) no doubt heard the statement made by Mr. Speaker yesterday. The position is that no hon. Member is restricted by that statement in dealing with any particular subject. I understand that the Minister of Housing and Local Government said that another Minister will make a further statement on the same subject in the same debate.

Mr. G. Thomas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I assume that the Minister of Housing and Local Government is not restricted and can give the House—as he ought as a senior member of the Government—any information which can be given to the House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a question for me.

Mr. J. Griffiths: As the Minister knows, it is understood that this will be a Cabinet decision, and the Prime Minister has very kindly seen deputations from various parts of the country on it. I do not want to pursue that, but we have been led to understand that when the decision is made it will be conveyed to the House by a member of the Cabinet.

Mr. Brooke: I have been in some difficulty also today, as will be appreciated. I think the House has perhaps at the moment got a misconceived idea that the Parliamentary Secretary is coming to the House later to make a statement. He will not be doing so, but he will be doing what every Minister always does as a matter of courtesy and duty. When informed that an hon. Member is likely to raise some matter on the Consolidated Fund Bill or on the Adjournment, it is the duty

of the Minister to be here and to reply. That is the situation with which I have been seeking to deal. It seemed to me, however, that I would be wrong if I were to make no reference whatever to the strip mill in my reply to this debate, or if I were to conceal from the House that the subject may be raised again later in the evening.

Mr. David Grenfell: I am very much involved in this question, although I have not said much about it. I have very strong opinions about the suitability of sites in South Wales. I know them better than any man in this House and, I think, better than any man in the country, as I taught geology and mining in that area and know the ground very well indeed. I do not think justice will be done to Wales or to men like myself if we ignore the subject of the location.

Mr. Callaghan: May I put this, not as a point of order, but as a question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Are we to understand if there is to be a wide-ranging debate, such as we are having now, in which the question of the location of a particular mill is raised, one hon. Member can stop a reply being given by the Minister in that debate by indicating to some other Minister that he or she proposes to raise the issue later? That would seem an absurd situation because the major debate on this matter has taken place and it was open to any hon. Member to put any points he wished to raise on the Consolidated Fund Bill debate. I wonder whether, without any discourtesy, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power would be willing to give his views, so far as he can, on the question of the strip mill.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: On a point of order. Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was going to raise the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), which he disclaimed as a point of order. Perhaps the Minister will forgive me if I add a phrase to it as in some sense I am the nigger in the woodpile. The reason why I signified intention of raising the matter was that I assumed that during this debate the Welsh point of view would be put and that it might be as well later to take the opportunity of putting the Scottish point of view.
The point of order I raise is that I regret, as a number of hon. Members regret, the fact that the matter has been made so rigid by the announcement made beforehand that these subjects were to be raised. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East will forgive me in this situation. It is not my fault, but I am more or less committed to raising this matter. I intended to raise it contingently on this debate if the Welsh case was put forward so that I could take the opportunity of putting forward the Scottish case.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I can assure the hon. Member that nothing has been made rigid by the statement by Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacPherson: I apologise for the use of that phrase. I meant that instead of the matter being left entirely to one's judgment it has been publicised that the subject would be raised and that lays a certain constriction on one's judgment.

Mr. Brooke: All I am seeking to do is to serve the House. I have already let the cat out of the bag by saying that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power will not be giving the final answer of the Government on the question of the strip mill. I have no doubt that if questions are raised by Scottish hon. Members or Welsh hon. Members at that time he will seek to give answers and all the information he can.
I was about to remind the House that the policy of the Government of attracting individual new factories to this area of Wales is working successfully. We were pleased to hear that R.T.B. was to establish a press and fabrication shop at Gorseinon which is intended to employ 450 people. That is the right sort of industry. It is a suitable industry and shows that R.T.B. is not writing off this area. A day or two ago we had the case of Crawley Industrial Products intending to set up at Llanelly. I understand it proposes to employ 250 in the first instance and hopes that that number will rise to a greater number later. The element larger than either of those is the most welcome decision of the Pressed Steel Company to occupy a factory which is going to be built for it just outside Swansea, with the immediate intention of employing 2,000 people as soon as possible, again with the hope that, if

the venture is successful, that will rise to a considerably greater number. It is no secret that other firms have been showing an interest in the area, and I am sure that it will be the wish of all of us that some of these other inquiries may fructify as those two I have just mentioned have done.

Mr. Gower: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend, but, at the moment when various points of order were raised, he had just said something about the siting of the works at Newport, and he had referred to the suggestion by the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen (Lady Megan Lloyd George) that, if the area had very full employment, it was thereby prohibited from having an industry. Surely, that is not the case. It is of tremendous importance that Newport is not to be prevented from having an industry simply because its unemployment is slightly less.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What I was doing was simply pointing out the weaknesses in the argument of the hon. Lady the Member for Carmarthen. It were established that a new industry should never have an I.D.C. to set up in an area where there is no unemployment or little unemployment, that would ab initio rule out Newport as a site for the steel works. The hon. Lady might wish to do that, but I do not think that any other hon. Members would wish to do it, and she herself would do it not out of any hatred of Monmouthshire but only out of love of Carmarthenshire.
Reference was made to the possibility of clearing the derelict Landore site, which I have known only too well for many years. That would cost money, and one must judge, when seeking to spend money, whether greater economic gain would be achieved by clearing an eyesore of that character rather than spending it for some more constructive purpose. It is not as though there were no other possible sites in the area. There is not at present a shortage of sites.
Reference were made to road improvements. If I may say so, I think that it would be a mistake to advocate road improvements as a sort of relief work just for absorbing the unemployed. If we are to carry out road improvements, they should be based on economic purpose. In fact, the great new motor roads which are being driven do not employ a


very large number of people in relation to their cost.
The Government's policy, confirmed by an announcement to the House yesterday, is to carry forward with these road improvements designed to better the access to South Wales and West South Wales from the Midland area. We believe that that is of high economic importance, and, indeed, that it is essential if we are to secure one of our objects, namely, that men who are running successful businesses in Birmingham or the Midlands shall cast their minds westwards to Glamorgan or Carmarthenshire when they wish to expand. At the moment, anybody driving along the Heads of the Valley road can be held up for miles and miles because some bus is slowly climbing the hill in front.
One or two hon. Members expressed doubt and anxiety about future employment in the mining industry. I know that by one or two, at least, of the deputations received by Ministers not long ago, a request was made for an authoritative statement, particularly about future employment in the anthracite area. I have been in consultation with my noble Friend the Minister of Power about this and he has authorised me to say that the National Coal Board has informed him that, provided there is reasonable co-operation from the men, the Board does not expect any substantial decline in mining employment in the anthracite areas up to 1970. This is not to say that there will not be closures. On the contrary, a number of pits will be closed and new ones will come into production. It may well be, moreover, that some men from the closed pits will not be able to find work at the new or reconstructed pits, and there will also have to be movement within the anthracite areas. But, provided the men co-operate, there should be about as many men in mining in the anthracite areas in 1970 as there are now. I hope that that information available to my noble Friend will give reassurance in an area where I know doubt has existed.

Mr. Finch: The Minister, of course, has referred only to the anthracite area. He will understand that the problem is found in other coalfields.

Mr. Brooke: I quite realise that the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch)

was referring rather to the Monmouthshire and Glamorgan valleys when he was speaking. As he knows, I visited many local authorities in those valleys during the Whitsun Recess, and I know that there are problems at the Heads of the Valleys particularly. It is not altogether easy to see what the future of those lively communities will be in the years ahead. I can certainly give the assurance that they will not be forgotten in all the efforts we are making to try to attract more industry to South Wales.
Monmouthshire as a whole, of course, is highly prosperous at the present time. There are many places in Monmouthshire where the percentage of unemployment is below the average for all England. Our policy has been very successful there. I know that there are problems in Monmouthshire. One I know only too well is the problem of road bottlenecks and the need for a second bridge over the Usk at Newport. An announcement has recently been made which brings the building of the Severn Bridge nearer, to the great pleasure, I believe, of everyone—certainly to the great pleasure of the Minister for Welsh Affairs. When that plan goes forward, it will help to relieve the Chepstow bottleneck that many of us know so well.
A good deal of the debate has been devoted to Cardiff, particularly to the situation in the docks there. This is a real problem. The British Transport Commission has been putting most of its money into the docks at the other ports. I am bound to say that, having regard to the falling off in the coal export trade, it seems that there is excess dock capacity along the South Wales coast. It is difficult to avoid that conclusion. One must recognise that. But it is not true that the British Transport Commission has written off Cardiff docks as though they were of no importance at all.
I took note of the points made by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan). Frankly, I do not think that there is anything in his idea of off-shore discharge of oil. I think that that is a non-starter, but I will certainly make sure that the other matters which he put are examined. Here again, it is a question of whether one should spend money on trying to prepare a site for an industrial estate in the dock area when it is known that there are industrial premises empty


already in Cardiff. One has to determine the right priorities.
As regards the difficult question of dock charges, the hon. Gentleman was good enough to recognise that this is not something which any Government can solve by direct action. I have had discussion about it with my noble Friend Lord Brecon, and I know that it is one of the matters which he wishes to consider further in order to see whether he can, by rendering good offices, bring us further along the road to a solution of what has hitherto been a thoroughly intractable problem in South Wales. The hon. and learned Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen) spoke—

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister propose to say anything about the ship repairing industry?

Mr. Brooke: I do not think there is a case for a committee of inquiry into that matter. I will certainly bring to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport everything that has been said. I meant that I proposed to take up all the points and suggestions that have been made not only about the docks but also about ship repairing. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East knows, this is not an easy period for ship repairing. What I am seeking to do is to convince the House that not only has the British Transport Commission not writen off Cardiff Docks; the Government also do not regard Cardiff Docks as of no account. This is a difficult problem and we have to try by hard work and study to see whether we can bring about improvements. I am not, however, promising early results. I am merely giving an assurance that this is a matter to which the Minister of State and I will be giving further consideration to see whether we, in conjunction with the Minister of Transport and other Ministers concerned, can find solutions for some of these problems.
Time is getting on and I think I should pass now to mid-Wales, about which the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan spoke. Owing to lack of opportunity for young people, there is an outflow of the younger element which keeps the unemployment figures down, but the average age level is rising all the time, and over a long period there has been a slow movement of depopulation, which is discouraging. There is no easy remedy for

this problem. As evidence that the Government are not disregarding the needs of mid-Wales, I would point out that the Teifi Pools water scheme, which the hon. and learned Member mentioned, is receiving a larger Government grant than I think has ever been given to any rural water scheme in either England or Wales. I hope that the Government's farm improvement scheme will bring substantial help to Welsh farmers. As the hon. and learned Member knows, the Minister of Agriculture is interesting himself, in particular, in studying how further assistance can be given to small farmers. Largely, mid-Wales is a land of small farmers.
In his statement on forestry the other day, my right hon. Friend laid special stress on the importance of so balancing the forestry policy for Britain as a whole as to give due weight to the contribution that it can make to meeting the social needs of areas such as mid-Wales. Incidentally, it is not true that there are no timber-using industries in Wales. I am sure that the timber-using industries will grow as the timber matures.

Mr. G. Roberts: So far, the quite extensive afforestation in the Principality has not led to any considerable satellite ancillary industry. May I take it that now there will be a new departure as land is taken under the new programme for new afforestation so that processing and finishing industries will be added to those forests in Wales? It will be a new departure if it happens.

Mr. Brooke: Only last year I opened a board mill in Flintshire, which was a new departure. I am sorry to say that the last thing I heard was that the mill was not working full time because of lack of demand. That illustrates that one cannot have a pretty plan and introduce timber-using industries here, there or anywhere and be sure that they will be a success.
What one would like to see in the small towns of Mid-Wales are small factories and light industries, not belching chimneys. The small factories that are successfully running at Llangollen, for instance, which have stabilised the place, are creating opportunities for the boys and girls. I have great regard for the work that the Mid-Wales Development Association is doing, but I assure the hon. and learned Member for Cardigan


that there is no truth in his assertion that Government action is devoted to dissuading industry from rural areas. I think that the hon. and learned Member was speaking of the past and not the present. However, like him, I attach importance to the passage at the end of the statement of my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade yesterday when he referred to the Development Commission being available to assist light industry in rural areas suffering from depopulation. The development fund will no longer operate in areas where assistance under the new Act will be available. The factory at Pen-y-groes will be completed, but the Development Commission's activities will now be more concentrated in rural areas where depopulation is the difficulty, and the greater resources of the Exchequer will be available on the advice of D.A.T.A.C. in the areas which are included in the list as areas of high and persistent unemployment.
The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) asked me a minute ago what was happening at Glynllifon Park. The position is that the local authority prepared and sent forward a water order. In due course, I hope and expect that the rural district council will make a formal submission. After that, there will be a public inquiry. The sooner all that happens, the better. It seems to me that that is much the most practical way of getting the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman referred thrashed out and decisions reached. I am, however, extremely anxious to see the Ashburton Chemicals project fructify. As the hon. Member knows, we have had a disappointment at Llangefni, but the two oil companies still seem interested in Holyhead. I think that the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes) is abroad at the moment, otherwise I am sure that he would have taken part in the debate.
I can promise the hon. Member for Caernarvon that he will receive replies to the points that he raised when Lord Brecon visited the Lleyn Peninsula. Negotiations are going on about one or two possible developments at Pwllheli. The numbers are not large in the area in which the hon. Gentleman is interested, but the percentages are high.

Mr. G. Roberts: Three thousand.

Mr. Brooke: Yes, but in comparison the numbers are not high. If one can find the right solution it should not be impossible to provide the employment that will transform the outlook for people there.
I still believe that more could be done through the tourist trade. I am convinced that Wales has a most valuable economic asset in its beauty, and I regret it when I hear people speaking as though the only thing to do is to get factories everywhere even if they do destroy the beauty of the Welsh mountains. I am quite sure that there can be a compromise between these two. I am quite sure that one can increase the amount of factory employment while not destroying the beauty and frightening off the visitors.
It is the case that the inquiry into the overseas tourist trade which the Government have put in hand will, of course, extend to Wales, and I for one should very much like to see a steadily increasing number of holiday visitors attracted to Wales, not because that is a substitute for factory work but because I think it is a pity if they go elsewhere and do not come to Wales.

Mr. G. Roberts: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for interrupting him again, but I think we are all agreed that there can be a marriage between new industry and scenic amenity. What we are concerned about is that the growth of a certain type of industry should not simply increase seasonal employment and throw up new problems arising from the fact that it is temporary, for two or three months each year.

Mr. Brooke: I appreciate that. At the same time it would be a pity if factories did not come, and I believe that both are possible.
I do not share the hon. Member's view that a fresh inquiry into the slate industry is desirable. I believe that the markets for Welsh slate can be further exploited. I have a feeling that there are too many committees of inquiry into Wales as a whole. I am more anxious for action than for more inquiries. I am certainly not despondent about the future of this industry. I do not think it is simply going to disappear. The comfort which the hon. Member for Caernarvon and his constituents can take is that now for the first time the same kind of Exchequer


assistance becomes available in Anglesey, Caernarvon and Blaenau which hitherto has been available only in the Development Areas. I dearly hope that will bring assistance to the hon. Member's hard-hit county.
I should like to tell the House what has been happening about a matter which has aroused great interest and caused great controversy and concern in North Wales, and that is the possibility of a nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd. The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) had a Question down for written answer today, and he may by now have received the reply.
The facts are that the Minister of Power proposes to give his consent to the construction by the Central Electricity Generating Board of a nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd. I have been closely associated with my noble Friend in considering the planning aspect of this proposal. The site, as hon. Members know, is situated in the Snowdonia National Park. It is, therefore, very important from my point of view.
There was a three-day public inquiry last February, held jointly by inspectors of the Ministry of Power and my Ministry. That inquiry was also concerned with the transmission lines which will be needed to connect the new station with the main electricity grid and with the pump storage reservoir and stations which are now being constructed at Ffestiniog. The report of the inquiry is being made public and copies are now available to hon. Members in the Vote Office.
I hope that the decision will be acceptable.

Mr. T. W. Jones: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive my interrupting him, for he can appreciate that I cannot contain myself with joy at this wonderful announcement he has made. I am sure it will give great joy indeed to Trawsfynydd, Merioneth and the whole of North Wales. The answer that I got this afternoon to my Question was held back until the right hon. Gentleman was supposed to be on his feet at 6.30, and I want to bring the right hon. Gentleman into the picture. I asked whether the Paymaster-General was in a position to make a statement concerning the projected nuclear power station. This was the reply I had:

Yes, my noble Friend, after consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs has decided to give his consent to the construction of a nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd.
I feel very grateful to the Minister for all he did to secure this. He can see that I am in a very generous mood, but this is not an indication to my colleagues to meet me at the close of this debate. I am sure that this news will be regarded as the greatest news that we have had in North Wales for many a long year.

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his remarks. I am sure that the decision will be acceptable to him and I greatly hope that it will be acceptable to public opinion generally. I must say to those in and out of Wales who are anxious about the effect that this development may have on the national park that there are conditions attaching to the construction of the station and the planning of the overhead lines. The Generating Board will employ a landscape consultant to assist it and it will consult with the planning authority and the Royal Fine Art Commission about the general design and layout of the station.
As to the overhead lines, there is one section which has given by noble Friend and myself some concern and that is where the line has to cross the Vale of Ffestiniog. We are satisfied that the line cannot be put underground although it will, of course, have to cross a renowned and beautiful view. The difficulty and cost of putting the lines underground will rule that out, but even if it did not, the structures needed at the point where the line would be put underground would be most unsightly. My noble Friend has included in his consent the provision for a tolerance of up to 1,600 yards westward down the valley so that in consultation with the planning authority the Board may choose positions for the supporting piles which will be as inconspicuous as possible.
I went past Trawsfynydd last week when I accompanied His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on a tour through Wales, during which he was greeted with true Welsh enthusiasm. We ended up at a memorable closing ceremony at Cardiff Arms Park. During that week of the Empire Games, Wales excelled herself in


organisation and hospitality. Many a tribute has been paid to Wales and her people by the overseas tourists. I should like to think that all Wales could rise to equal standards in attracting overseas visitors at all times. A tremendously high standard was set last week.

Mr. J. Griffiths: That is our usual standard.

Mr. Brooke: I have been asked about the running track at Cardiff Arms Park. For my part, I think that it would be an excellent thing if means could be found to have a first-class athletic track of a permanent character established somewhere in South Wales. I do not know whether it can be done or how it could be done. It is more than a matter of moving the existing track. The whole question of constructing a stadium has to be thought out.

Mr. Griffiths: I should like to be associated with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. Rugby is part of our life in Wales and this is the famous Cardiff Arms Park. I say, not for any puritanical reason, that I am deeply distressed about this matter. I was privileged at one time to serve as chairman of the Youth Committee and I know how sadly lacking are these facilities in Wales.
This is a beautiful track which cost £15,000, and the athletes present at the Empire Games said that it was the best track that they had ever run on. It is very distressing that the track is now to be ploughed up to provide for greyhound racing. The Cardiff Athletic Club and the Welsh Rugby League wish to stop this track being ploughed up. They want to see it made available for a sport which will be of great advantage to the whole nation. We should be grateful if the Minister could help us in this respect.

Mr. Llewellyn: My right hon. Friend has asked what is missing. The Cardiff Rural District Council has a site ready. What is missing is £8,000.

Mr. Brooke: I am afraid it is not possible for the Government to make £8,000 available for an athletic track. If we

did so there, we would be asked to do so for other places. If some solution to this could be found, it would be a very happy outcome. The difficulties have been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North, who has brought the matter to the attention of the House today.
In conclusion may I say that the right hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) anticipated what I was about to say. In order to attract industry we must now repeat the efficiency and organisation and, in the right sense, hospitality which was so brilliantly extended to the visitors to the Empire Games. I think we should not only encourage incoming industry but should also encourage Welshmen to start their own businesses. I deplore the articles which appear sometimes that speak solely in terms of trying to attract English business into Wales, and which overlook the fact that there should be men in Wales ready to risk their fortunes, ready to set up as their own masters to try to make a success of running their own businesses. If there could be that change in the atmosphere in Wales, it would be a most valuable step forward on the journey which we must take together to try to diversify further the industrial equipment of Wales.
It was my noble Friend the Minister of State who took the initiative in bringing together a number of industrialists to discuss the possibility of forming some kind of development commission or corporation. I attended the first meeting. I thought the discussion was a fruitful one. Unfortunately, by a slip, the Press reported me as having said that I thought it was not a very fruitful one. It was very fruitful and those discussions have continued. I have reason to believe that the fruit will ripen and that in due course we shall have a body, not under Government control or Government auspices, but certainly with Government approval, that will channel all these various efforts that have been, and are being made, to bring more industry into Wales, to build industry within Wales, and in all those ways to solve the main problem which this House has been discussing for the past four hours.

Orders of the Day — UNEMPLOYMENT IN COATBRIDGE

8.44 p.m.

Mrs. Jean Mann: I have listened very patiently to my colleagues telling of the plight of the various districts of Wales. I am very glad to have caught your eye, Sir, because I think that the plight of my constituency is very much more grim and formidable than anything that we have heard of this afternoon. It is not merely a question of a constituency which has been deprived of some Government work, or where work has temporarily stopped; it is an iron and steel constituency which is faced with decay, which fears that "temporarily stopped" will mean "permanently stopped," because of the decayed and obsolete nature of a great deal of its industry.
Unemployment in Coatbridge is 8 per cent., but it was officially given to me by the Minister of Labour as 6½ per cent., and since then there has been a striking increase. In 1957, a year ago, there were 1,413 unemployed, and today there are 2,731. That takes no account of what we are constantly saying now about the married woman who pays the 5d. for Industrial Injuries benefit.
My constituency is very upset about it. A meeting was called of town councillors and trade union officials, who held an open conference on the subject in Coatbridge. Even in comparison with the public meetings held about increased rents, there has never been a meeting since the last Election which was so well attended as this meeting about the state of industry in Coatbridge.
One of the speakers, an organiser of the British Iron and Steel and Kindred Trades Federation, pointed out that of all the areas he had visited Coatbridge was the worst hit. He said that there was a rate of 8 per cent. unemployment in the district, and that this was the same figure as in Greenock and Dundee, where the unemployment position had received far greater publicity. That is one reason why I was so glad to get in a word on this subject before the Summer Recess, because my constituents feel that others have been getting much greater publicity while they are being overlooked.
This organiser went on to reveal a very intimate knowledge of the conditions inside the "Iron Burgh", as it has often been called. He stressed the fact that the machinery in local industry would be rendered obsolete, and that eventually Coatbridge would be completely out of the picture so far as iron and steel is concerned. He suggested that the obsolete mills operated by many local firms must be replaced, and he went on to tell us that the Clyde Works, which are now temporarily stopped, would ultimately go out of commission if immediate remedial steps were not taken. The future of the other big industry, the Imperial Works, he said, was also very doubtful.
Indeed, when he told the conference of the state of these industries, it was almost like a dose of castor oil, for he said that similar industries in Germany had been reinforced by being built anew. Having won the war, he suggested, we had proceeded to put Germany on her feet, and she was now proving a formidable competitor to my constituency, which is still labouring with obsolete machinery.
I am very glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade here, because I am certain that he will pay attention to what I am saying. The conference to which I have referred passed a three-part resolution. It called for new industries for the area. The provost of the burgh pointed out the problem caused by our derelict sites, which are not attractive to industrialists who come to the area looking for sites although we want new industries. The conference asked for a further reduction in the Bank Rate and also for a slackening of the embargo on trade between East and West.
I am very glad that there has been a reduction in the Bank Rate and that this week a slackening of the embargo was announced. Moreover, I am extremely pleased with the announcement that North Lanarkshire is to be one of the areas singled out for the increased attention which certain areas are to have. In that connection, can the Parliamentary Secretary say exactly what areas in North Lanarkshire are included and how it is proposed to proceed?
The conference made one demand which outstripped the three which I have


just mentioned. That was that a telegram should be sent to the Prime Minister, President of the Board of Trade, and Minister of Labour asking for the steel strip mill. The divisional organiser of the British Iron and Steel and Kindred Trades Federation emphasised the importance of the steel strip mill, even although it would be as far away as Grangemouth. He said that its importance to Coatbridge and to the whole area of North Lanarkshire could not be overstressed.
We have heard some argument for the strip mill going to Wales. I am sorry that my hon. Friends who come from Wales have now left the Chamber, because I would have liked them to have heard some of the arguments against the mill going to Wales. We have been told by hon. Members from the Principality that Sir Stafford Cripps and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) thought that industry should be sited on a sociological basis. On such a basis, Scotland, and not Wales, should have the mill. We have also been told that due attention will be paid to the economics of the situation—which may even be the principal factor—in the decision about the siting of the mill.
I can understand that, but I cannot understand an argument which was put to me today, that the mill might go to Wales because Wales had very great influence in the House of Commons.

Mr. John Mackie: Nonsense.

Mrs. Mann: As a Scot, I could not accept that.
With one outstanding exception all our Prime Ministers of late years have been Scots, including the present one. In addition, the right hon. Member who shows very great ability, the Minister of Labour, is also a Scot, and we must not forget that the two highest position in the House are occupied by Scotsmen, namely, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Deputy-Speaker. In those circumstances, I cannot accept the argument that on grounds of influence in high places the steel strip mill should go to Wales.
There is another argument, and that is strategic dispersal. I would ask those responsible to bear in mind that Wales

already has three steel strip mills, and we have such regard for our friends from the Principality that we would not want them to endanger themselves with a fourth. We are quite willing to share the risk and to accept it on behalf of Scotland.
My hon. Friend will speak more to the point of this matter than I can, but my constituents have re-echoed the summing-up of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) when it spoke of the need for a new major industry and said:
We believe that there is great need for a new major project in Scotland which from its nature would generate ancillary industries around it. The manufacture of strip steel would create such conditions, and the Council has taken a very active part in the campaign to have such manufacture established in Scotland.
Before I sit down I want to mention the electrical industry, which is an equally important one. Scotland has been very much neglected in this respect. In an appendix the Scottish Council shows that of industries in which unemployment is below the rate for England and Wales electrical engineering comes into the picture. The rate is 7·3 per cent. for England and 2·3 per cent. for Scotland.

Mr. George Lawson: My hon. Friend referred to the unemployment rate; she means the employment rate.

Mrs. Mann: Yes—this is the employment percentage. It shows that Scotland's figure is below that of England and Wales in relation to the electrical industry.
My constituency has been promised a great development at Airdrie—by Pye Ltd., which, about eighteen months ago, obtained land there with the ultimate object of employing 3,000 people. What has happened about that is anybody's guess. At present, the whole scheme has been delayed. I can only refer to newspaper reports, especially that of the Daily Telegraph, in which it was alleged that Pye had lost orders to America, and that dollars were being paid for something which Pye could make equally well. In fact, it was asserted in the Daily Telegraph that Pye could make stripways for aircraft better than any other industry in Europe, and that the firm had secured orders from Switzerland. In spite of that, the Government had apparently placed a very large order, costing I do not know how many dollars, in the United


States. I would like to get to the bottom of this, because it is causing a good deal of concern in Airdrie.
A steel strip mill, bringing with it new factories and electrical engineering, would certainly help North Lanarkshire, and I trust that the Government will bear this fact very closely in mind and help us to regain our prosperity.

9.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I am sure that we are all very grateful to the hon. Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) for introducing the subject of this debate in such a lucid way. I can assure her that we have very much in mind at present the difficulties in Coatbridge and Airdrie. I am sorry that I shall not be able to answer her in detail about the contract to which she referred, but I undertake to have the matter investigated and to get in touch with her as soon as possible.
I share the hon. Lady's disappointment in regard to the Pye factory, because we were very hopeful that that development would be on a big scale. As she knows, we have erected on the firm's behalf a new factory, into which it is just about to move. Our regional controller for Scotland is working very hard with the firm to see what can be done to find other work.
It seems that a number of things have hit the district at the same time. For example, Robert Craigie and Sons, paper manufacturers, have turned over to pulp as their raw material instead of rag. That has resulted in the standing off of 120 rag sorters, for whom it will be difficult to obtain other employment. Those are the sort of technical changes which we have to accept from time to time.
I appreciate that several Coatbridge iron and steel companies have workers on short time or temporarily stopped. One must, however, be careful not to assume that "temporarily" means "permanently". It certainly does not. While it is too early to be certain that prospects will improve, the really important thing is that industry, in particular Colvilles, are sufficiently confident to be continuing with long-term development plans and improvements in the domestic market resulting from the continued relaxation of the credit squeeze to which the hon. Lady referred.

Mrs. Mann: Coatbridge is more concerned with Stewarts and Lloyds than with Colvilles.

Mr. Erroll: I mentioned Colville's from the point of view that they were continuing with their long-term development plans unabated, and I quoted that as an example of the confidence of the industry in their own productive future.
Apart from the iron and steel industry, whose revival would obviously make the greatest contribution, there are in prospect about 1,000 other additional jobs which will become available in factories in the Airdrie area and in Uddington, which will be of considerable benefit as they become available.
I would also remind the hon. Lady of the new factory work which has just begun, including a new factory of 30,000 square feet at Coatbridge. It is announced by a firm of hosiery manufacturers that there will be employment for a substantial number of workers, mainly women, after the factory is completed early next year. We have figures which show that it will be quite a considerable contribution.

Mrs. Mann: I understood the figure to include 70 women.

Mr. Erroll: I think that the figure is planned to be much higher, but, unfortunately, it is still confidential, though I should very much like to reveal what it is.
As was mentioned, North Lanarkshire is included in the list of those places eligible for assistance under the Distribution of Industry (Industrial Finance) Act. The hon. Lady asked whether the places in North Lanarkshire could be shown in the form of constituencies. The places shown in the list are either local employment exchange areas, or groups of areas as defined by the Ministry of Labour. They are not arranged on the basis of constituencies, though I agree that that would be of help to hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I will obtain information for the hon. Lady, showing exactly which constituencies are covered by the North Lanarkshire area.
The fact that we have included North Lanarkshire in the list is proof of our determination to do everything we can to bring the right sort of industry to this area, which, we recognise, is in need of assistance and encouragement.

Orders of the Day — SUBSIDISATION OF THE ARTS

9.8 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I wish to set my hon. and learned Friend's mind at rest immediately by saying that I do not propose to ask for the subsidising of the arts to be taken over by the Treasury. I know that that would not be in line with the approach of my hon. and learned Friend to this matter. Certainly I should not want to recommend it, but I think that the position which has recently arisen calls for a public inquiry into whether the present method of subsidising the arts through the Arts Council is the best way to deal with this very important matter.
I am asking for an inquiry perhaps on a more limited scale than that afforded by a Royal Commission, although my hon. and learned Friend might think a Royal Commission suitable. That idea has received a great deal of support from the Press. The Daily Telegraph was in favour of a Royal Commission and there has been support in The Times for an inquiry. There has also been a great deal of support in the Sunday Times for an investigation. I think the time has come, bearing in mind recent circumstances and the controversy between the Carl Rosa Trust and the Arts Council, when we should examine the whole question to see whether the present means of subsidising the arts is right and proper.
Let me say straight away that I am a firm believer in support for the arts. Though I do not suppose that my views would be acceptable to my hon. and learned Friend, I think that we should contribute more than we do to the arts, but I will not pursue that matter tonight. I do not want to be violent in what I have to say. I realise that it is far better to try to examine this problem objectively and without heat, though I am bound to say that some of the things which have happened have caused the greatest anxiety to me and to those serving with me on the Carl Rosa Trust.
I wish to divide what I have to say into two parts. First, I wish to speak of the controversy which has arisen between the Carl Rosa Trust and the Arts Council and then to say something about the general administration of the Arts Council. The artistic director, a very distinguished man, a professor from Manchester University who has great

support in his own sphere resigned from the Trust with the chairman, Sir Donald Wolfit, and three other members. I wish to ask my hon. Friend this question. If a board is set up after public money has been spent on acquiring an opera company, is it his idea that, with the exception of the artistic director and the chairman, the Trust should be absolutely dumb? I realise that in the old days, when there were distinguished patrons of the arts, the decisions of artistic directors were probably much clearer and much less subject to criticism than today, when public money is involved.
Let me put it in this way: Professor Proctor-Gregg, as artistic director, arranged a spring tour for the Carl Rosa Opera Company. Under his direction the provinces have had less opera, the companies have had less work and the costs have mounted to such an extent that over the tour the estimate has been exceeded by £5,000. Every week that the company has been on tour the estimate has been exceeded by £350 a week. That is the position. The overdraft, which was limited in accordance with the policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, has been exceeded. Under the direction of the chairman and the artistic director, a donation which came into the Carl Rosa Trust, to be spent, as we understand it, on a new production, was inadvertently put into the general account at the bank and has been used for the reduction of the overdraft and the holding down of the overdraft to very nearly the figure which the bank had set. I do not consider that that is either honourable or proper finance.
In addition to that, as I see it, if one is a member of a trust or a board dealing with public money which is being expended on employing people, the trust has at any rate some right to have some consideration for what happens to the people in its employment, and to the guarantee and the protection that those people have to have. I found it very disturbing that the appropriate trade unions, that is to say, the Musicians' Union and Equity, representing the musicians and the artists, had protested at the dismissals which had been made by Professor Proctor-Gregg and that the chairman had written a letter, as he very often did in his own hand, to the appropriate trade unions saying that those dismissals


had the full support of the Trust when, in fact, the Trust had never been informed at all. This only came out subsequently when the representatives of the Musicians' Union met the present Trust and pointed out that the Union had made the representation and had received a letter from the chairman saying that the dismissals had the full support of the Trust.
In spending public money, my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary, who represents that section of the Treasury which deals with the subsidising of the arts, would not expect a body of responsible people to sit as a Trust and merely say to an artistic director, "You have carte blanche. You can do what you like. We wash our hands of the whole affair. What happens is no affair of ours." When the controversy became pretty heated we passed a resolution which instructed Professor Proctor-Gregg—not that we wanted to dictate what he did—that in future when matters of this kind were involved, that is, the spending of public money and the treatment of the people for whom we held some responsibility as we believed for the Government, we should be informed. The artistic director and the chairman took the view that this was a gross interference with the rights of the artistic director. They promptly resigned and have had the support of the Arts Council.
I want to make quite plain what in fact the Arts Council has done. It has established, and given reasons for so doing, what it calls Touring Opera, 1958 Limited. It has announced the balance of the grant which has been allocated by the Arts Council to the Carl Rosa Trust of £40,000. It has made no provision for the reduction of the overdraft, which was an obligation of the Trust before the chairman and the artistic director resigned. It has left the Trust with an expensive office, with commitments, with bills, with liabilities, and has merely cleared out. The Arts Council has not communicated with the Trust as to what we are supposed to do in the matter of meeting our obligations, which, I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will agree, are the obligations of an honourable board.
The Council has merely said, "You go ahead with the overdraft, which is in the nature of £11,000"—in fact it is

£16,000 without the £5,000 which had no right to be put into that account—"We are making no provision for that overdraft. We shall spend the whole of the £40,000". That is all we have heard about it. I do not consider that that is honourable finance. I am bold enough, on behalf of other members of the Trust and myself, to say that we consider we are people of integrity. We do not consider we are entitled to that treatment by the Arts Council, or from a body which itself is drawing public money.
I should like to know from my hon. and learned Friend whether he thinks that in the spending of public money, if a Trust is properly created, the members of the Trust should make no observations, ask no questions, but merely rubber stamp decisions taken by a chairman and artistic director. There are one or two legal matters which arise out of the decision of the Arts Council to create Touring Opera, 1958. I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension. The members of the Trust are very glad to know that the artistes and the company, for whom they have great regard and who have a great responsibility, are to get a season, short though it may be. That, at any rate, is something.
Before I discuss the matter in a little more detail, I want to point out that the three independent members of the Trust—those members of the Carl Rosa Trust who have never required any support from the Arts Council, in the shape of patronage, the Treasury or the Ministry of Education, or any direct grant from the Treasury for the Royal Schools of Music, still remain members of the Trust. Also on the Trust we still have the only two people who have any experience of touring opera.
There is one point about the legal question which has arisen from the Arts Council's decision. I have here a letter from which I will quote because it illustrates, in my view, the incompetence of the Arts Council in creating this situation without due regard for the facts of its legal position when deciding to throw over the Carl Rosa Trust. Curiously enough, this letter was sent to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Goole (Mr. G. Jeger), who happens to be interested in this matter. There is a reference in the letter to the secretary of Touring


Opera, 1958, who also resigned, though, of course, he was a paid servant of the Trust and has now become the administrative officer of Touring Opera, 1958. The letter was written by some theatrical agents Renee Stepham Ltd. to Mr. Jeger of the Whitehall Theatre, and this is what it said:

"Re: Carl Rosa. I have just received a call from Mr. Bohn"—

this was our late secretary—

"the reinstated secretary of the above company, who has asked me to inquire whether you will accept the Carl Rosa under its new title Touring Opera 1958, the reason being that the Carl Rosa will not receive any fund from the Arts Council and cannot, therefore, put the company on the road. The funds, however, will be administered for exactly the same company, same repertoire, artistes, etc., but under the new title. No doubt a certain amount of publicity will be put out in the press to this effect, which should mean that all opera fans will realise that Touring Opera 1958 is, in fact, the Carl Rosa. Please advise.

Yours sincerely,

For and on behalf of Renee Stepham Limited.

(sgd) Renee Stepham."

The point about that letter is this. When the Carl Rosa Trust was established by the Arts Council, it alone, under its articles of association, was allowed to use the title "Carl Rosa". Those concerned are, of course, legally entitled to set up their new Touring Opera, 1958 which I regret their having done, but they are not entitled to use the Carl Rosa name. The lawyers for the Trust have written to the Arts Council pointing this out, but, until this moment, we have had no news from the Arts Council about how it proposes to deal with this very difficult and critical legal situation.

I want to say something about the formation of the Trust as it is today, with the resigned members of the Trust. The Arts Council sent out a memorandum, which it published in the Press, drawing attention to the fact, in not very polite terms, that there had been disturbances in the Carl Rosa Trust resulting in the resignation of twelve members during the last three and a half years. That is perfectly true, of course, but there is one point to be made about it, The Carl Rosa was bought from Mrs. Phillips, who had been the owner of the company for many years and who has a great and distinguished reputation in running the company. It is fair to say that the Carl

Rosa Opera Company was our only touring opera company, with its roots deep in the provinces and well loved and admired by the people of the provinces.

When the Carl Rosa Trust was established, Mrs. Phillips appointed five nominees to the Trust and the Arts Council appointed five. When the Arts Council made its appointments it put on the board three members of Sadler's Wells. Of course, I am not in the artistic world, and therefore I am not in a position to comment on it, but I am in a position to say from my own knowledge of ordinary business that when a board is established one does not put one's competitors on it.

It is very well known in the opera sphere that the Carl Rosa produces a quite different form of presentation of opera from other opera companies. The Carl Rosa has always been known for a robust type of presentation as opposed to the rather anaemic type of Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells. The general public, however, can take its choice. It is a free world and people can listen to whatever type of opera they like; but the fact remains that when the Carl Rosa Trust was established and when the Carl Rosa Opera Company was bought from Mrs. Phillips, it was written into the agreement that the tradition of the Carl Rosa should be retained under the Carl Rosa name.

I think that it was a great error of judgment on the part of the Arts Council immediately to place on the board of the Carl Rosa Trust three members of Sadler's Wells. I cannot go into the whole history of the merger, but Mr. Norman Tucker made it plain that Sadler's Wells and Mr. Tucker himself, who was appointed to the Carl Rosa board, had a great contempt for Carl Rosa. Therefore, I consider that it was a great error of judgment on the part of the Arts Council to make up the board with competitors in the same field. I only mention that in passing.

I want to finish what I have been saying about the members of the Trust who are left. The Arts Council in a rather nasty memorandum points out that two members of the Trust are due to retire at the annual meeting which will be held in September of this year. I think that I shall be one of the retiring members, and I have no doubt that the


Arts Council will be very pleased to see the back of me. It has already told us that it will be very careful in scrutinising the people who are elected to serve on the Trust in place of the two retiring members. Therefore, I am delighted to be able to tell the Arts Council that the hon. Member for Goole, who has very great experience in the theatre world, has very kindly agreed to serve on the Trust. Therefore, if I retire the Parliamentary link will be retained, which, I say at once, is not at all acceptable to the Arts Council. In addition, we have invited Mr. Martin Holmes of the London Museum—who, like his father, is very well known—to serve on the board.

I should like to read, so that it can be put on the record, what Mr. Martin Holmes wrote about the old Carl Rosa under Mrs. Phillips and its recent performance under the retired artistic director. The whole argument on a great many fronts has been as to whether the standards of Carl Rosa, which has had to do everything on a shoestring, are acceptable to the general public. This is what Mr. Holmes wrote on 5th July:
Dear Dame Irene Ward, Please allow me to express my warm personal appreciation of your recent letter to the Press about the Carl Rosa Opera Company. Whatever has been happening within the Company over the last few months, I cannot consider that the change of management"—
that is a reference to Professor Procter-Gregg—
has been anything but disastrous, if the last Sadler's Wells season is anything to go by. For the first time for several years the repertory was completely unenterprising; its only item of real interest was a production which had been the highlight of the last season of Mrs. Phillips's management, and for which a conductor from that management had to be engaged, as the new dispensation had not produced anyone who was prepared to cope with it, let alone competent to do so. Sir Donald Wolfit, I see, has been telling the Press that the last Sadler's Wells season was an advance on those of the last three years, but I rather think it was less successful financially"—
that, of course, is quite true—
and I am sure it was so artistically. If I can be of any help in supplying information, either from my research on stage history in general or my personal recollections of Carl Rosa productions for nearly forty years, I hope you will have no hesitation in calling on me for it. The Carl Rosa Company has a character of its own, and that character is partly formed by, and particularly suited to, the nature of its work as a sound touring opera company, so it is well worth preserving"—

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady. She gave notice that she was going to talk on the Arts Council as a suitable medium for dispensing such moneys as the State could offer for the encouragement of the arts. She now appears to be talking about the Carl Rosa Company, which is a quite different organisation, as I understand. I think she should stick to the Arts Council.

Dame Irene Ward: I certainly will, but I thought I would be a little more conciliatory before coming to the real point of my story. I think, Mr. Speaker, you were not present when I opened my statement on the Arts Council. I pointed out that the Arts Council was responsible for finding the money for the Carl Rosa. In fact it acquired Carl Rosa, and—

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Lady will not drift too far from Ministerial responsibility in this matter.

Dame Irene Ward: No. I certainly will not. I think the letter has spoken fairly enough for itself.
I just want to make one other point, which I am sure you will allow me to do, Mr. Speaker, and then I will deal with the Arts Council and why I want an inquiry or a Royal Commission. I am very grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having let me go as far as I have, but I think that if one is to be a little unduly unpleasant it is just as well to start by being a little more friendly.
The last point is this. This is a statement which was made to the Press by the Arts Council, and to which I take very great exception. I am not going into detail on that, but when Sir Donald Wolfit and Professor Procter-Gregg and other members of the Trust resigned it was important from the point of view of the Arts Council that they should get a majority of the members to resign. I am glad to say they were not successful, but Sir Donald Wolfit did endeavour to persuade the deputy-chairman of the Trust, a very distinguished and delightful conductor, Mr. Aylmer Buesst, to resign, too. Mr. Buesst first of all did resign and then decided it was not right to do so, for he is a man of great honour and integrity. When the Arts Council announced it was going to make a statement in the Press it did a thing which I thought does not come very well from a distinguished body drawing a large sum of


public money, for in its announcement about the question of the grant it ended the statement by saying, and this was in the announcement, that 11 trustees had resigned:
One other changed his mind after announcing his resignation.
I thought that that was a pretty poor thing for the Arts Council.

Mr. Speaker: It may be as the hon. Lady says, but I do not see what it has to do with the Treasury.

Dame Irene Ward: Quite a lot, because the Treasury, of course, finds the money. I will come straight to the point. Perhaps you would like me to be very outspoken. I will say this quite straightly from the shoulder.
I am not criticising the members of the Arts Council. They are a very distinguished body of people of great integrity and they do a very great service in trying to administer fairly the grants which come from the Treasury. But what has happened and what I have observed is that too much power sometimes goes to people's heads. I am not saying this about individual members of the Arts Council. It is for them to try to control the methods of those whom they employ, but I regret to say that it has become the practice of the Arts Council that when it wants to create a friend it finds the necessary patronage, which comes, after all, from public money for which Parliament is responsible.
I can give two illustrations. We, the Carl Rosa Trust, were given a grant on the understanding that after the unfortunate death of our chairman, we appointed Mr. Cundell, who was a member of the Covent Garden Trust. I have nothing to say against him at all. He is a very well known and distinguished person, but he was a member of the Covent Garden Trust and, as it has been the whole object of the Arts Council, if possible, to try to have a general control of opera, that was one of the methods which it used. I do not think that it was a very creditable one.
Sir Donald Wolfit has received a grant from the Arts Council, which is money found by the Treasury and therefore is the responsibility of Parliament. He was a very great critic of the Arts Council. I want to make it perfectly plain that I

am a great admirer of Sir Donald Wolfit. I think that he has done a great deal for the theatre. My complaint against the Arts Council is about its selection of recipients of Treasury patronage, which I think is very often unsuitable. A great many people who are entitled to Arts Council patronage do not receive it.
Writing to Mrs. Phillips, Sir Donald Wolfit said:
Now what I am going to say is very confidential and you had better destroy this letter when you have read it.
He went on to say,
I spend hours a week and considerable time doing a voluntary job … all for the aggrandisement of the Arts Council who have just played me a dirty shameful trick and who never liked me.
I think that is absolutely true. It is true because Sir Donald Wolfit, quite wrongly in my opinion, never received any support from the Arts Council until he became chairman of the Carl Rosa Trust. He is quite right in saying that the Council did not like him. It does a great deal of its work on the basis of its likes and dislikes. But when he became chairman of the Carl Rosa Trust, as will be seen from the annual report of the Arts Council for 1956–57, he was suddenly given a grant of £500. From that moment—as is very natural and I do not blame him in the least—he became a friend of the Arts Council, quite prepared to do anything it wanted. I am making this allegation because it is extremely difficult to find an opportunity for getting at the bottom of some of the difficulties and problems which arise in the world of the arts.
Now I want to make another point. I have a great admiration and affection for Lord Waverley, who has rendered distinguished service to this country. He was a great friend of mine and he told me himself one day that he had accepted the chairmanship of the Covent Garden Trust to please his wife. I am sure that the Covent Garden Trust was lucky to got the services of Lord Waverley but, although he was a very distinguished man, he was not quite a match for Mr. David Webster, who is the general administrator of Covent Garden. But let that go by the way.
Then, Mr. Speaker, as I said before you came in, the Arts Council has found £40,000 without any strings for the new


Touring Opera, 1958, and has left the Carl Rosa Trust with this very substantial and heavy overdraft. Some of my colleagues on the Trust think they will have to meet the overdraft, but I have told them that they have the protection of Parliament and will not have to worry about that because I shall see to it, as long as I keep my seat, that this money will not have to be found by members of the Trust.
I do not want to go on with this sad story, Mr. Speaker, but it is very regrettable, in my opinion, that we cannot find a better way of subsidising the arts, which we all want to serve and which we all feel are necessary to our civilisation. We have a great heritage in this country, whether in our art, our museums, or our music—though we could do a great deal more for music. At the same time, when we have a body administering public funds, it is essential that it should be above reproach.
These things are very difficult to say. People get carried away with their enthusiasms. Naturally they think they are right. I sometimes think I am right myself when undoubtedly I am wrong, but I am always prepared to admit it. I have not liked what I have seen of the Arts Council administration. I think it is time to look at what is going on. I have sent my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary some other documents which he has examined. I shall not bring them to the notice of the House tonight because I do not think it would be appropriate for me to do so.
I have listened with great interest to the debates on the Privileges of Members of Parliament and I believe that there are occasions when rather difficult matters have to be made proceedings in Parliament in order to get the necessary protections. It is regrettable that the system of a grant-in-aid is very difficult to criticise, very difficult to discuss, and very difficult to raise in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, with your eagle eye over us. It is most important, therefore, that from time to time these matters should be subject to Parliamentary criticism and that they should be raised in the House of Commons.
The Arts Council has made it plain that it does not like Members of Parliament. I do not blame the Council but neither do I like it. I certainly think the time has come to look at the whole

question. I hope that I shall be able to urge my hon. and learned Friend in this direction. I am a great believer in the plan that has been brought forward by Lord Bridges. I should like to see the responsibilities of the Arts Council broken down, because if a pressure comes from opera or from art or from orchestras, which are subsidised with public money, it is unfortunate, as is the case when the Arts Council has to play one off against the other.
If one can bring sufficient pressure to bear on the Arts Council, we may find opera overthrown for the benefit of the drama or the drama overthrown for the benefit of our great orchestras. I think that to channel all the money to one body, as we do under the present system, is not serving the best interests of our national expenditure on the Arts as a whole.
I think that Lord Bridges's idea of taking opera away from the Arts Council is a good one, and I would apply that to every section and break up the Arts Council. I have had enough of it. I should like to see an administrator of great experience and integrity given direct from the Treasury what the Treasury thinks it can spare for opera or drama or whatever it may be, and then I should like those who want support to make their case I do not want a State monopoly of the arts, and I think that most people would agree that to try putting the arts into a monopoly system of organisation would be fatal. I should like to see each organisation, whether it concerns an orchestra or an opera company, going to this administrator and making its case, so that everybody over a very wide field could feel that they could make their own case to the administrator, and would not be, so to speak, in competition inside the Arts Council one against the other.
I think that the only way of dealing with the whole future of the arts is to learn from a wise man like Lord Bridges, and I think I am right in saying that the Prime Minister said he would be delighted to see him. I should like to see this whole matter looked at again, and I beseech my hon. and learned Friend, before any other unpleasant and undignified actions on the part of the Arts Council take place, to set up either a Royal Commission or a public inquiry. I think that in that way we who are interested would serve the arts better.

9.48 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) started by posing the question, which I think I took down correctly, whether, where there is a board of trustees set up at public expense and subsidised from public funds, the trustees should be absolutely dumb. Without attempting to answer that question in the abstract, may I say that I was aware that my hon. Friend is a member of a board of trustees, and that if it was a certain board of trustees of which she is a member and to which she was referring, I would answer in the emphatic negative.
I do not expect her to be absolutely dumb. On the contrary, my hon. Friend seems to me a sort of parliamentary Reichsmarschal, for as soon as she hears the word "culture" she reaches for the Order Paper.

Mr. John Mackie: Do not encourage her.

Mr. Simon: I know that my hon. Friend has a great enthusiasm for the arts, and that she believes, and has said, that the State should contribute more to the arts, but I think that the publication which came out yesterday, which I do not know whether hon. Members have yet had a chance of seeing—"The Government and the Arts in Britain"—does throw a good deal of light on the work that has been done at public expense for the arts.
I wonder whether many members of the public know that in this year's Estimates nearly £7 million appear for expenditure on the arts, a figure which has increased from less than £1 million. My hon. Friend rather suggested that the Arts Council was the sole dispenser of Government patronage for the arts. That is not so. It is true that expenditure on the Arts Council has risen from £235,000 in 1945–46 to £1,100,000 in this year's Estimates, but that is only £1,100,000 out of just under £7 million which is the total Government expenditure on the arts in Britain in this year's Estimates, and that leaves out of account what is expended by many local authorities.
However, the question arises whether the Arts Council is the appropriate body for the channelling of Government expenditure to the arts. My hon. Friend has made it perfectly clear that she has a

fundamental quarrel with the Arts Council, the people who constitute it, and its constitutional position. I must make it no less clear that the Government's view is that the present system is essentially sound. In point of fact, there are only two alternatives. The one is to have State subsidies for the arts directly through a Government Department, and the other is the present system.
Does anybody seriously believe that there should be a Government Department directly responsible for channelling such money as is available from public funds directly to the arts?

Dame Irene Ward: No.

Mr. Simon: Anybody who heard my hon. Friend this evening would have great cause to think twice before advocating such a system, with all its opportunities for Parliamentary lobbying and for representation of one interest against another, and so on.

Dame Irene Ward: rose—

Mr. Simon: My hon. Friend has been speaking for three quarters of an hour and I think that it would be an abuse of the time of the House if I now gave way to her.

Dame Irene Ward: He is not quite stating the truth.

Mr. Simon: It is almost universally accepted that the preferable system is that the State should support an independent body and leave such a body the maximum discretion as to the form in which it allocates its resources to the different institutions requiring its aid. That is the present system of the Arts Council.
After all, the arts are the least suitable victims for bureaucratic control and for that reason successive Governments have deliberately aimed to preserve and develop independent centres of administration in the arts rather than concentrate artistic policy under a more direct State control. I do not know whether my hon. Friend wants me to become Minister of Culture and National Enlightenment.

Dame Irene Ward: No.

Mr. Simon: I did not think for a moment that she did, but that is the alternative to which her policy was bringing us.

Dame Irene Ward: Not at all.

Mr. Simon: There is a great variety of applicants, and the experience of the very distinguished members who combine expert and detailed knowledge of the different arts, such as one finds on the Arts Council, is not to be found in any Government Department. For that reason it seems to me that the present system of the Arts Council is far preferable. It is analogous to the system of the University Grants Committee for academic policy.
So much for the general question. My hon. Friend also related it to the unfortunate disputes which have arisen relating to the Carl Rosa Opera Company. I believe that one dispute arose in connection with the degree of independence which should be given to Professor Procter-Gregg, as artistic director of the company. He was called in as director for a year in an effort to raise the artistic standards of performance. Some of the trustees, including my hon. Friend, thought that his reforms were too drastic. As a result of mounting disagreement, a number of members of the Trust, including the chairman, resigned. I cannot believe that those disputes redound in any way to the advantage of opera or artistic endeavour in this country.
My hon. Friend has gone into these matters in very great detail this evening. She has gone as far as to read a letter which was obviously written for a private eye, and has made very serious allegations against the Arts Council and a number of former members of the Carl Rosa Trust. I do not propose to follow her into those matters in any way at all. It is sufficient to say that I believe that the House as a whole thinks that the present system of channelling aid to the arts through the Arts Council is constitutionally the most desirable one, and that my right hon. Friend and the Government have confidence in the way in which the Council dispenses the patronage that lies in its scope.
My right hon. Friend finally raised a question which is very important and which commands considerable public sympathy and the sympathy of hon. Members. She raised the question whether there should be a general inquiry into the arts. That is not a matter on which my right hon. Friend has closed his mind, but the fact remains that at

the moment the Gulbenkian Trust has set up an inquiry precisely in this field, headed by Lord Bridges, and it seems to me that we would be well advised to await its report, which I hope will be made available to the Government, before proceeding further in that direction. With that, I hope that I have satisfied my hon. Friend.

Orders of the Day — STEEL STRIP MILL (SITING)

9.58 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: I turn back from the higher matters that have just been discussed to those connected with our daily life, and our bread and butter. I must begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power for attending, at some considerable inconvenience to himself. I do not know whether he will be able to give a great deal of information. From what the Paymaster-General has been saying in Answers to Questions I would hardly expect it, and if I find the hon. Member giving a short reply I shall not take it amiss, but I shall be grateful for any information which he can supply.
On several occasions the Welsh debate touched upon the question of a strip mill. I do not want to give the impression that I am putting forward any sort of nationalist case against Wales; it is merely that there is very considerable interest in this matter in Scotland, and since the Welsh case has been put I thought that it would be beneficial for the Scottish case also to be put. I do not presume to think that I can express the Scottish case, but I think that the majority of Scottish people would take roughly the same point of view as I do about most of the matters concerned.
The first official statement about the fourth strip mill came in the publication, in July of last year, of a special report by the Iron and Steel Board. It says very plainly that
at some stage it will be necessary to construct a new hot strip mill with the complementary iron and steel plant and cold rolling facilities for the manufacture of sheet and tinplate
It says this because it makes a certain calculation, adding together two particular points. It says, in the first place, that by 1962 demand is likely to have fallen


below productive capacity; that the deficit will be roughly 400,000 tons per annum, and that by 1962 the amount of obsolete capacity will be about half a million tons. It adds the two together and says that in 1962 or thereabouts there will be a need for further productive capacity to the extent of 900,000 tons. On the basis of that figure it says that there may be a question about the economic figure for an installation of this sort, but the figure of 900,000 tons is quite evidently an economic one.
Beyond that, one assumes—indeed, I believe the Board itself says this—that in course of time the amount of production is likely to go up beyond 1 million and perhaps beyond 2 million tons. That is the core of the interest which Scotland, as well as Wales, has in this mill. It is an enormous project. It is not merely another simple investment; it is not merely the establishment of another simple industry. It is a tremendous step in the country's economy, whether Scotland, Wales, Lincolnshire, or any other area benefits in the end from the establishment of the mill.
The Government have made public the fact that they have taken one decision; they have decided that this strip mill will be established. I hope that I am right at least as far as that. Beyond that, it seems that we are left in the dark as to the decisions which the Government have taken. We are told that there is a divergence of opinion between the Board and the industry as to when the mill should be establshed. Industry thought that the demand would not be reached by the time the Board thought that it would. In other words, that the establishment of the mill could well be postponed for at least a few years.
That was a divergence, not of policy, not on the main issue of establishing a mill, but simply on the matter of a comparatively few years, three or four, or, at the most five or six years. I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman whether that divergence has been resolved. Does the Board and industry see eye to eye now about when the mill should be established? In point of fact, because of the time factor involved in building the mill, and getting it into full operation, the Board points out that that divergence would tend to disappear in any case,

because it would take five to six years to build the mill and longer still before it was going at full stretch. However, one would like to know whether the divergence of opinion has now been resolved.
There is also the matter of form. When the Prime Minister saw a deputation of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies, a year ago, one of the things he said—it was very interesting and rather mysterious at the time—was that the form of this project had not reached the point of final establishment. In any case, I had intended to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the form of the project had now been decided, but I must now ask him that with rather more emphasis, because I have just seen the Scottish edition of one of this morning's newspapers which reports that there is a possibility—it links the Secretary of State for Scotland with the possibility—that the project will be split into two, and that half will go to Scotland and half to Wales.
I must put to the hon. Gentleman that the very statement of such a possibility will cause considerable interest in Scotland. I use the term "interest" as a word which does not raise any question; it will be more than interest. It would be very beneficial if the hon. Gentleman could give us some information about that. I have no technical knowledge of the issues involved, but I gather from reading the statement of the Board that there is a possibility of dividing the project in that way.
So far as a layman can judge, that is possible. During the Welsh debate, earlier this evening, one of my hon. Friends referred to this possibility, so that apparently it is not out of the question. As a layman, one asks that question first. Apparently, it is not impossible. It would allay anxieties in Scotland, and, I have no doubt, in Wales, if the hon. Gentleman would say something about it.
Now may I raise the specific question of the site? The firm concerned, Richard Thomas and Baldwins, has made no secret that it wants the mill established in Wales. That has been put forward by at least one hon. Member opposite as the main reason why the Government should come down in favour of a Welsh site. But I hope that the Government will not follow that kind of advice. This is an enormous investment


project, and not the kind of thing which should be decided by one firm. I think that the Cabinet has already made clear that it intends to make up its own mind. I hope that any suspicion which may exist—it does exist in some quarters, although it is not widespread—that the Cabinet will simply endorse the company's decision, is mistaken. I do not believe that the Cabinet is likely to do so, but it would help if the hon. Gentleman could give us a firm assurance that the Government will not be influenced in that way.
The site at Grangemouth, which is just outside the borders of my constituency, has been surveyed by the Board and found suitable. Interest in this project is not by any means local. Naturally, there is great interest in my constituency and my hon. Friend the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has stressed the great simportance attached to it in her constituency. The same is true of the rest of Scotland. There is tremendous Scottish national interest in the siting of this mill. It is a decision which the Scottish nation has been waiting for with justifiable impatience.
When we ask for an indication of when a decision can be made, we are not doing that for fun. There is cause for anxiety and worry. Last December the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs stressed that this was urgent. The Minister of Power is reported to have said in May of this year that there was no urgency about the matter. I do not know with what correctness he was reported, but the report appeared in the Scotsman, which is not a paper normally given to careless reporting. If that is so, one wonders whether we are to have some guidance about whether there is any immediacy in the minds of the Government about this matter. Following whatever leads they can get, the Press have been telling us that there is a likelihood of a decision in three weeks or a period of that kind. It leaves the Scottish public wondering what is the situation.
Hope deferred maketh the heart sick".
There is something of that situation just now.
Now I would say one or two things about the advantages of siting the mill in Scotland. We can dismiss any argument in our public discussion that the whole

thing is purely a technical matter of steel making and that we have to site the mill where the technical processes can best be carried out. The Government have made it quite clear that they take a wider view of the matter than that. We can also dismiss the question of simple relative costs of production, which, between the Scottish site and the Welsh site, is not great. What advantage there is, is likely to be in favour of the Welsh site.
From our point of view, what is in question is not simply the economics of steel production but the economics of the national activities that would be concerned. It might be quite possible to establish the plant in Scotland at a higher cost in steel production, but there would be very much greater gain by way of ancillary industries and other user industries which would gather round the plant in Scotland, but not in Wales. That is the basis on which the decision ought to be made. Scotland needs a decision of that sort, and that is the reason for the great interest in the matter.
It is not simply a matter of increasing Scottish prosperity, or of doing something additional for the Scottish economy. There is a strong feeling in Scotland that there is a tendency for the major economic interests to drift to the South. Our population has been drifting a bit to the South, and out of the country, too. Our unemployment rate is still double the ordinary economic rate, but even that is after a very heavy outflow of unemployment. We are inclined to feel, with a great deal of justification, that we need an additional impetus to our economic life.
Our steel production specifically has been falling in recent years proportionate to United Kingdom steel production, and we are not now producing anything like the proportion of the total United Kingdom steel that we used to produce. We have not been getting an equal or fair share of the newer industries. We have an electrical industry and one oil refinery, which is by no means the sort of proportion one would expect. There is a general feeling, which, I think, is well justified, that the Scottish economy is lagging a good deal behind the economy of United Kingdom generally. I do not say that it is not prosperous or that it is by any means a depressed economy, but there is in Scotland a great


deal of slack, of unused human resources and that kind of thing, that could well be taken up by the establishment of a major new industry of this sort.
However, we feel that the advantages of the Grangemouth site are more than simply its technical suitability—which apparently it has—for steel production. The labour, for instance, is there in Falkirk, which is near Grangemouth, and is part of my constituency. The main industry, light iron castings, has been suffering a very considerable decline in recent years. Very close by is the shale industry, which is in the same situation. There is a great deal of spare labour of the proper type, the skilled artisan type, which could well go to the kind of work involved in steel production and would do it extremely well.
The transport situation is very favourable. Grangemouth is well situated in relation to roads and railways and the docks are closer to the Scandinavian ore fields, on which we will presumably still rely, apart from the amount of home-produced ore. In addition, the local councils have expressed themselves as extremely willing to provide all the services which would be necessary.
We feel that in Scotland we have a good case. We do not know all the factors. We do not know what weight is given to each factor, for example, what weight is given to the strategic question of having three strip mills out of four situated close together in South Wales and whether it would be better to have them more widely separated over Britain. We feel that to establish the mill in Scotland would be to establish it in a situation which there could be considerable growth of ancillary industries, which would not be likely to happen if it were established in South Wales, where already there are two similar mills.
We feel that the recent history, the twentieth century history of Scotland, has been such that a mill of this sort would be the very kind of thing which Scotland needs. One trade union leader said, and I quite agree, that it would be the biggest event in the economic life of Scotland for fifty years. Quite possibly, it would be the biggest event for the next fifty years, also. Because of the magnitude of the project, and the importance it would have for Scottish economic and social life, we

are anxious to have all the information possible that we can have about it from the Government.

10.17 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Sir Ian Horobin): I wish to thank the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) for raising this matter particularly from the Scottish point of view, and for doing it so shortly. He was good enough to say that he would not take it amiss if at this hour I did not reply at great length.
If I was in a position today to announce a final decision on a matter of such importance it would be necessary, and the House would expect, to have a very substantial discussion of all the great issues involved so as to justify to the House and to the public the relative weights given by the Government to reasons for making a final decision. But, as my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government and Minister for Welsh Affairs has already said, we are not yet in a position to give a final decision. I therefore propose to be fairly brief.
I agree entirely with what the hon. Member has said about the scale of this matter and its importance. Earlier, we were discussing for over an hour one-seventh part of £7 million. This is a matter of between £100 million and £200 million. It is, therefore, two or three Trawsfynydds. It is an immense affair. For that very reason one has to be most careful because one cannot alter a decision once made; one cannot do a little bit here and a little bit somewhere else. Whatever we do, the mill cannot start producing until somewhere in the early nineteen-sixties. That means that a few weeks or a few months are well spent in endeavouring to balance the considerations accurately. I do not think that at this stage we need bother too much about the exact amount of the deficit in sheet and tinplate we expect at that time.
As everyone knows, the circumstances have altered somewhat in the steel industry and other industries recently, but this is a long-term matter. Something like 1 million tons will probably be needed in the early 1960s. Without going into which exact year in the early 1960s and exactly how much more or less than


that will be required, I think that one can safely say that an amount substantially of that size will be required. As it takes, in any case, about five years to get the thing going—this answers one of the points the hon. Gentleman made—it is becoming definitely urgent, not in the sense that it must be done today or during the Recess, that a decision be taken.
The Government have been twitted once or twice about delay. I am prepared to say to the House that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power is, no doubt, a very important Minister, but if he were a dictator, he is very clear in his own mind what we ought to do and where we ought to do it. Wild horses would not drag from me which of the various choices I should come down on. I think I may say that, after taking all the best advice available to me, I have not been able to come to the conclusion that it ought to be in Oldham, East. I only wish that I could. Beyond that, I cannot go.
There are, in these difficult decisions, very many different opinions held by different people who approach the matter in different ways, and we must hope that the final conclusion will be the best for the country as a whole. Having referred to my own views on the matter, I ought to say that I have been in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, because I did see, and was rather startled by, the Press reports to which the hon. Gentleman referred. My right hon. Friend has authorised me to give the most categorical denial that he made any proposal of that sort. That is not to prejudge the issue as to what form the mill might take, whether it should be in any particular place, be divided or not divided. But he authorises me to say categorically that he made no proposal of that sort, because no decision has been come to. It is important to have the record straight in that respect.
As the hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs said, there are at least four major candidates, two in Wales, one in Scotland, one in Lincolnshire, each having strong points in its favour and having advocates in the House. We must consider the possible sterilisation of enormous quantities of coal. We must consider

the advantages in the matter of raw materials. We must consider location in relation to the ultimate consumer, who is mainly in the Midlands, and a number of other matters. We must consider all the social questions to which the hon. Gentleman himself referred and to which some Welsh hon. Members referred earlier in discussing unemployment and so forth.
I must remind the hon. Member and the advocates for different parts of the country who base their case on social reasons that one not unimportant reason for building a steel mill is that it should produce and sell steel. I emphasise the word "sell", because we are encountering more and more competition as the world develops today. It is absolutely essential that, when this mill is built, it should be able to sell its steel in competition with all comers. It is no good landing Wales, Lincolnshire, Scotland or anywhere else with a "white elephant", in an attempt to solve unemployment problems, which will be uncompetitive just when one wants it to be competitive. We must, therefore, balance extremely carefully the social arguments with the economic arguments which, as the hon. Gentleman has said, have been pressed very strongly upon us by the various authorities and the industry itself.
I think the hon. Member said that he hoped that the alleged views of Richard Thomas and Baldwins would not weigh too heavily with the Government but that they would make up their own minds. I do not dissent from that, but I must remind him and the House that somebody has to build the works. The Ministry of Power cannot build it and certainly cannot work it. I do not say that it will, but if the industry unanimously comes to the conclusion that it does not want to build the works, because it does not think it will work in a certain location because it thinks that it is uneconomic, that is a consideration which must weigh very strongly with the Government. It is not a selfish consideration in the case of R.T.B., because they are still nationalised. They are almost, so to speak, a public department in this matter and possibly even have a public conscience.
What I am putting briefly to the House and to the hon. Member is that we are


most conscious of the social arguments that have been very properly put in favour of Scotland, West Wales, and so on. We are also very conscious of the fact that colossal sums of money, probably a great deal of it public money, will be, for good or evil, permanently tied up in this works once it is built and a very large sector of the British steel industry will be dependent upon the success of it.
Therefore, I do not think that, in view of the seriousness of the issues involved and the complications, the House on the whole would be fair in criticising the Government in taking a little more time to make up their minds on the understanding that time is not unlimited. A great many other interests in different parts of the United Kingdom are awaiting a decision in this matter. The Government are very conscious of that and When they can feel that they can take a decision—and however long we work on it we cannot be certain that it will be right—having done their best to decide these issues, the decision will be made and announced. I am only sorry that I cannot announce it tonight.

Mrs. Jean Mann: Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the decision will be made before or after the General Election?

Sir I. Horobin: That depends on so many things—for example, the date of the Election. If the hon. Lady could tell me that, I think that I could possibly give her the answer now.

Orders of the Day — POST-WAR CREDITS

10.30 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Since the war, Governments of this country have found considerable difficulty in living up to the understanding which was arrived at during the war that after the war post-war credits would be redeemed. Personally, I have had some difficulty since the General Election of 1955 in living up to a pledge which I gave to my constituents at that time, that I would do my utmost to plead in Parliament that those credits should be repaid. It is only now, some years afterwards, with Parliamentary proceedings what they are, that I have been able to arrive at this point.
To begin with, I think the House should consider the statement made by a Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th April, 1941, when he presented the Budget of that year. What he said was this:
I am proposing, therefore, that the extra tax which any individual will pay by reason of the reduction in the personal allowances and earned income allowance will be offset after the war by a credit which will then be given in his favour in the Post Office Savings Bank. In other words, the individual citizen will have to pay the tax in full, but that part of the extra tax to which I have referred, while complying with our vital war-time necessities will constitute some provision for post-war difficulties and will, I hope, form an additional fund of post-war savings for himself and his dependants.
A little later he said:
It is most necessary for me to emphasise . . that the whole tax must be paid at the proper time, and that the taxpayer cannot claim or use his credit while the war continues."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1941; Vol. 370, c. 1329–30.]
The implications of that speech and the Act itself, which I shall quote in a minute or two, were quite clearly that when the war ended those credits would be redeemed and redeemed in full.
The scheme of repayment which was devised by Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1946, was that these credits would be repaid to a man on attaining the age of 65 and to a woman on attaining the age of 60. By the Finance Act, 1954, provision was made in cases of death and bankruptcy to repay to the person having the title to the credit at that time when, but for those eventualities, the credit would have been repaid. Since then there has been no change whatever in the arrangements which have been made.
Various suggestions have been put up from time to time for reducing the age at which repayments are made or, for example, for issuing the post-war credits documents stamped with the age of maturity and then made negotiable for sale to the banks, or alternatively, for repayments in cases of certain disabilities or for certain persons at various income levels. Again, proposals have been made for acceptance of post-war credits in lieu of death duties. All of these have been rejected by all successive Chancellors since the war.
I think it may interest the House if I say a word or two about the figures which


prevail at present, and I would invite my hon. and learned Friend who is to reply to say whether these are or are not correct. About £765 million of post-war credits were outstanding at the end of the war I have taken that from a recent Parliamentary Answer, so I hope that that is the correct figure. In the financial year 1946–47 a sum of £58 million was released; in 1947–48 a sum of £59 was released; and then from the years 1948 to 1954 about £17 million a year was released. Why those earlier post-war years achieved such a high rate of release I do not know, but those are the facts. In 1954 the sum repaid jumped a little to £23 million, but in 1955 it was back again to £17½ million, and in 1956, 1957 and 1958 £17¼ million was, or will be, repaid.
In reply to a Question on 5th May this year, the Financial Secretary told Parliament that £446 million was now outstanding. At £17 million or so per annum that will take twenty-six years and three months, if my long division is right, before the total amount outstanding is repaid.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Surely the rate of repayment is bound to increase in the coming years because of the larger number of people who hold these credits who will move towards the ages at which they are repaid. It will not be a constant figure of £17 million or so because, after all, no new credits have been granted since the later stages of the war, and the holders are all getting older. I think that many more people will come into repayment in a few years' time owing to the age distribution of the existing holders.
Since the noble Lord has been so kind in giving way, may I also remark that the higher rate of repayment in the early years was due to the dammed up claims awaiting a decision for repayment? The higher figure in 1954–55 was also due to the retrospective effect of the repayment of credits to those who had died or who had gone bankrupt at the ages at which they would have been entitled to repayment if other circumstances had prevailed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have listened to the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) for many years past and

have always thought that he had many titles to become Chancellor one day, but at the moment we are dealing with one source of knowledge, and that comes from my hon. and learned Friend who, I hope, will correct the figures if I have wrongly given them.
On 18th July, 1957, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. John Hall), who I am glad to see in his place, asked what estimate had been made of the value of a post-war credit of £50 in 1957 if inflation continued at the present rate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch), the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury, replied, "None." That, I suppose, meant that no estimate had been made, not that there was no value to the post-war credit.

Mr. John Hall: I think that my right hon. Friend was probably right on both counts.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I must confess that it would seem so, because the irony of the situation is that the longer this process continues and the longer inflation continues, the less likelihood there is that those worthy people who toiled successfully during the war in the expectation that some of their work would be rewarded, as Sir Kingsley Wood pointed out in his Budget speech, really thought that they would get something in the end, but the longer this process continues the more likely it is that they will get nothing at all.
All the same, I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe got his calculation a little bit wrong, unless he had taken into account the actuarial calculation which the hon. Member for Sowerby has just made, because it seemed to me, on the arithmetical basis, that the miserable process of repaying post-war credits would come to an end not in 1977 but in 1984, that well-known year of torture and concentration camps.
It has been the accepted doctrine of the Treasury accountants, year in and year out since this process began, that it was wildly dangerous and inflationary to release more than £17 million a year. Why £17 million a year should be the correct amount I cannot imagine. Seventeen million pounds of flesh year by year,


but not one extra drop of Christian charity to the people who originally subscribed this money and were promised that it would be returned. Meanwhile, the State annually spends over £4,000 million a year of the taxpayers' money, the spending of which is inflationary or not according to the whims of the recipient. Why in heaven's name we should assume that if £446 million of post-war credits were disbursed to their holders it would be money spent in a more inflationary way than a sum ten times that amount annually, I simply cannot imagine.
Indeed, there is evidence of inflationary spending on the part of those who are in the early or in the late age groups. The middle generations are notorious for their efforts to save. If the hon. Member for Sowerby is right in his calculations, and I dare say he is, about the cumulative total today of all those with post-war credits who will be repaid eventually in a greater amount annually than now, then those are the people who are, broadly speaking, in the saving classes. Few people below 35 years of age today have any post-war credits at all. Therefore, the whole of that £446 million is concentrated in the age groups which are disposed to save.
It may well be the case that on humanitarian grounds it is a good plan to distribute £17 million a year to those of 65 and 60 years, but on economic and disinflationary grounds it should be paid to those who are 35 years of age and over. Yet nothing is done year by year. There is a kind of lethargy of thought in the Treasury on this whole subject which is most disquieting.
My proposal is that this sum of £446 million of post-war credits should be discharged in toto forthwith. I should like to read from Section 7 (1) of the Finance Act, 1941, the operative words on this point that the amount of post-war credit
… so ascertained and recorded shall be notified to him"—
that is, the taxpayer—
as soon as possible and shall be credited to him on such date as may be fixed by the Treasury, being a date, so soon as may be after the termination of hostilities in the present war.
Therefore, the words that Sir Kingsley Wood, a Conservative Chancellor of the

Exchequer used, which gave people the understanding that when the war was over these credits would be repaid, are embellished in the Act itself and the people who drafted the Act, even the civil servants themselves, said in the Act that the credits would be repaid
so soon as may be after the termination of hostilities in the present war.
But the point which I wish to raise in this connection is simply that the Treasury is empowered to determine the date on which the credit should be repaid, and that date, I believe, is now.
I know perfectly well by what means these credits could be repaid, but for technical reasons it is impossible to refer to them in this debate. I can say only that it should be a once and for all capital operation. No new precedent would be created by doing this. The £17 million which is repaid annually now is provided for below the line in the Financial Statement, thus acknowledging its capital nature and the borrowing which is involved.
As for the inflationary aspect, if every penny of post-war credit money were spent today, which I am sure would not be the case for reasons which I have adduced, it would be counter-balanced by the extraction from the public of an equivalent sum. The burden on the economy of discharging these post-war credits in toto now would be negligible and would be far less than the political burden of keeping pledges perpetually dishonoured.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is wisely letting up on the economic front. There is some sign of recession in the United States and some sign of recession in Europe and in this country. So far my right hon. Friend has wisely favoured the private sector in letting up on the anti-inflationary pressures which the Government have felt it necessary to use in the last year.
There are two ways of taking up the so-called slack of unemployment. One way is by compulsive State expenditure from the centre on vast programmes in the nationalised industries, in State activity and so on. The other way is by a reduction of taxation—to which I very much hope the Chancellor will resort next year—and by repaying the post-war credits now.
In many ways, my hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary has the economic and physical characteristics of our great Conservative Chancellor, Sir Kingsley Wood. Let him assume the mantle. Let him wear the crown and, by his answer to this debate, let him restore to those who worked hard during the war, on the understanding that they would be rewarded for it after the war, the justice which they expect.

10.48 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: Those of us who have listened to the many speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will recognise that this is unfamiliar territory for him. I make no complaint about that, but I think that he was wrong in suggesting that this is the first opportunity which the vagaries, uncertainties and difficulties of Parliamentary procedure have given him to raise the matter in the House. There have been earlier opportunities, but perhaps he has missed them.
This debate would be more suitable within the framework of the Budget debate, in the discussions on the Finance Bill, or on other economic problems. I am not sure how far I am free to follow the noble Lord's arguments in discussing possible ways of dealing with accumulations of post-war credits, all of which, I believe, involve legislation.
Perhaps one can deal with certain suggestions which have been thrown out for regulating this long-standing and still very substantial debt to the holders of post-war credits.
Originally the idea of refunding to taxpayers after the war some part of the high level of war-time taxation in the form of post-war credits was put forward by John Maynard Keynes, if I remember rightly, in a little book entitled "How to Pay for the War". It was adopted by Sir Kingsley Wood who by then had been converted to some form of Keynesian economy, and the idea of post-war credits was evolved. It is very doubtful economics, if one is really examining the fundamentals of the matter, to regard as some form of saving for after the war money which has been collected from taxpayers during the war and blown to smithereens in smoke and guns and smashed to smithereens in planes and

sunk in ships, and call it any sort of real wealth held in trust for later refunding to those who gave it up as part of the war effort.
In examining that as an economic proposition it is very difficult indeed to make sense of it. Nevertheless, there was a great deal in the idea. Many people who could afford to save during the war would have accumulated savings in their hands after the war which they then could spend on consumer goods or in other directions—savings which they had made as part of the war effort but probably no sounder economically than post-war credits, having regard to the destination of voluntary savings being indistinguishable from the destination of compulsory savings. This can become a very involved economic argument.
They were not savings for later productivity. They were not an investment for subsequent expansion of the national wealth. This was expenditure for national survival in a manner which left us poorer and not richer after the war.
Keynes had in mind that many people would have savings voluntarily made during the war available for spending after the war. Others would not be in a similar favourable position, yet would have to contribute out of their war-time earnings a very substantial additional amount in taxation, and he conceived the idea that these people should have a post-war credit given to them which would differ from voluntary savings only in regard to the date of payment and the control over the release of those savings which the Government of the day would have.
There is a very substantial distinction between voluntary and compulsory savings. Voluntary savings one can get when one wants them, whether they are worth more or less, but compulsory savings can be released only by decision of the Government.
Keynes also had in mind that, following the experience of the First World War, there would most likely be a slump and that the release of post-war credits during a post-war slump would be one of the remedies which the Government of the day should have against a decline in money power. It would be a stimulus to spending over a wide front if post-war credits could be released when there were


signs of a decline in the level of consumption and a rise of unemployment.
Happily that time has not come since the war. I do not think for a moment that even the present level of unemployment—which is the highest since the war—is at anything like the level which Keynes believed we might suffer and which would be the occasion for the release of post-war credits on a grand scale; but that is only my opinion. I do not think that less than half a million unemployed and a total population in employment of over 20 million would have been regarded by Keynes as the sort of slump that he feared might occur, and during which the release of post-war credits would be a stimulus to purchasing power.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: He is dead now.

Mr. Houghton: Yes, he is dead now, but much that he said about the economic situation is valid today, and he has many disciples in the economic world.
But the practical question is how to release these credits and honour the pledge. The pledge was given; there is no doubt about that. Why the noble Lord should think that there is some special virtue attached to a pledge given by a Conservative Chancellor as distinct from any other Chancellor I am not very clear; anyhow, the combination of "pledge" and "Conservative" seems to impress itself on the mind of the noble Lord in such a way as to make its breach a dastardly thing.
That pledge has in part been fulfilled but only in part. In the circumstances existing in 1946 my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) chose a suitable way of beginning the release of post-war credits. It had the virtue of releasing them as a kind of retirement gratuity, when a man reached retirement age at 65 and a woman reached it at 60.
The great tragedy about these credits is that they have lost much of their value, and that when they are ultimately paid they will not represent the value which was given up by those who paid taxes during the war and on whose behalf the Government have been holding them. I suppose it can be argued that

the Government have a special responsibility to preserve the value of money which they have held in trust all this time, and which they have denied the compulsory saver the opportunity of realising for his own purpose. The voluntary saver has at any time been free to withdraw his money and spend it on consumer goods or in any other way he chose. Fearing, perhaps, that the value of money would fall, he could spend while the spending was good, if he thought that that was the best thing to do. But the post-war creditor has had no such opportunity, and in that respect is at a great disadvantage.

Mr. Leslie Hale: He cannot even use them to pay his taxes.

Mr. Houghton: No; he cannot use them for anything at all. They are not negotiable. He cannot sell them. He cannot even give them away. Nobody can give away his post-war credits. The possession of a post-war credit certificate is no title to repayment, any more than the non-possession of a post-war credit certificate is a disqualification from getting payment. The credit is in the name of the holder, and it is his alone. It cannot be passed on while he is alive.
In those circumstances, the opportunities for full withdrawal would obviously be strictly limited to reaching a certain age. Various ideas have been put forward as to how the repayments might be accelerated. In my own personal opinion, there is no particular virtue in reducing the ages at which repayment should be made. If there is anything in repayment at any particular age at all, perhaps the retirement age—

Mr. Speaker: Any such suggestion would involve legislation.

Mr. Houghton: I was sure, Mr. Speaker, I should get into trouble about this. It is most difficult to pursue this theme without going beyond the bounds of order. I think the prudent course for me is not to continue to discuss possible ways of releasing these post-war credits, because I think all of them involve legislation.

Mr. Hale: There is one point about this which seems to me important. Is not this exactly the scheme Horatio Bottomley proposed in this House and


got seven years for, and at the end was able to say "I have paid, but …"?

Mr. Houghton: I leave my hon. Friend to discover for himself whether a discussion of Horatio Bottomley will be any more in order in this debate than my attempt to pursue possible ways of releasing these credits. What I should like to do as a strictly practical question, and unrelated to the speed at or manner in which the post-war credits may be released, is to raise an administrative matter, which was raised in Questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this House, and that is of people who discover for the first time when they claim, as they are entitled to claim, repayment of their post-war credits that an arrear of tax for that year has stood against them from the original year of the post-war credit itself. I have had cases in my own constituency where people have reached the age at which they could claim their post-war credits and have been told that the full amount is not repayable, because there is still an unpaid arrear of tax for that year. To ask people to go back 14 years—and in some cases in future it will be longer than 14 years—to decide for themselves whether they owe tax is, I think, a tall order. In any case, it comes as a shock to someone expecting to get the money to find that it is reduced by a set-off of an arrear of tax for the same year as that to which the post-war credit relates.
I wonder whether something cannot be done to let all holders of post-war credits know now, or in the near future, whether there is any tax arrear standing against the credit they think they have, so that if there are any questions relating to these old tax arrears they can be gone into before it is too late, and certainly while the post-war creditor is still alive. It is most regrettable for his widow, as in some cases has happened, to go into the question of tax arrears for her late husband. In some cases, as the House knows, the post-war credit is repayable, not on the death of the holder but on the date upon which he would have reached retirement age had he lived, which in some cases leaves the widow with the problem of settling the post-war credit after her husband's death.
I know that there are difficult administrative problems in this connection. No one should know that better than I, because I have 40,000 members of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation to remind me of them, but, whatever the administrative difficulties, we have a public duty here to see that this post-war credit business is put on a proper footing, and it is not on a proper footing now.
I am not going to say that Governments have been indifferent to post-war credits in this connection at all, but since there has been no urgency behind this work until the taxpayers are coming to retirement age, there has been a natural tendency for some current pressing duties to take precedence over the straightening out of this big accumulation of post-war credits. In many cases information from tax offices all over the country has to be brought together before a final balance can be struck, if that has to be done, between arrears and the post-war credits. I think it imperative, since eventual repayment of these credits may be further postponed—that is a possibility which we must not overlook—that so far as possible the administrative work behind the still substantial number of credits held by the Government should be put in proper shape, so that people know where they stand and can deal with any suggestion that there are arrears outstanding against them before it is too late. Then in due time when the repayments are made, there will be no dispute which will have to be settled between the holders or their widows or representatives, and the Inland Revenue Department.
If I may be permitted one sweeping statement, I agree with the noble Lord that when this job is tackled, it will be far better to deal with it completely as a capital transaction than to nibble away at repayments on the present basis. I once expressed the belief, and I still hold it, that if the whole lot of outstanding credits were converted into voluntary savings at the disposal of the holders, a large proportion of them would be retained as genuine savings, mainly for the reasons which the noble Lord has given.

11.8 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) confessed that his speech


this evening was in fulfilment of an Election pledge in—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am reminded that the hon. Gentleman has spoken already on the Question before the House, so that he ought to ask the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Simon: I am entirely in the hands of the House. I should like to reply to my hon. Friend if the House will permit me.
I was saying that my hon. Friend had confessed that his speech was in fulfilment of an Election address in 1955. A speech made in such circumstances is probably not one which should be examined too closely for consistency, because, of course, my hon. Friend has been one of the most stern, most unbending, most high-minded and rigid of disinflationists. His proposal this evening is no less than to inject £443 million of Government expenditure—as the figure stands today—into the economy. It is that extremity, with the combination of an Election pledge and the rules of order, which precludes my hon. Friend from arguing for anything less than total disbursement of the post-war credits.
Before I come to examine the implications of that, I should like to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about the unfortunate situation which I agree does exist where, on occasions, the amount shown on the face of the post-war credit certificate is not wholly repayable. I think it fair to say that that happens in a very small proportion of cases, but it does undoubtedly exist and I have had a certain number drawn to my attention lately. They are mainly cases where a claimant is a beneficiary of a deceased person who owed arrears of tax in the year for which the certificate was issued.
In the original years, 1941–42 to 1944–45 certificates were very often issued before the tax was paid and showed a credit that would be issued if all the tax for the relevant year was paid. It was Government policy at that time to get the certificates into the hands of the taxpayers as early as possible. There is, in fact, a note on the certificates which makes it clear that the right to the credits is dependent on the payment

of the tax and in 1945–46 the certificate normally shows the net amount due after setting off any arrears. Since 1950 a check has been made in every case where the Inland Revenue learnt of a taxpayer's death and was asked to prepare new certificates. I hope that will reassure the hon. Member, who very fairly said that the Government and the Inland Revenue are not indifferent to this problem.
It arose because in the earlier years, before 1950, it was not possible to make that check. Those were the years when tax offices were working under very heavy pressure—as the hon. Member knows, better than any of us—as a result of the burdens which were thrown on a depleted staff in the earlier years of setting up the P.A.Y.E. scheme. They were not able to take up the work of collating the tax arrears with post-war credit records. Now such collation takes place, but it would throw a very heavy burden on the tax offices, and require a substantial recruitment of staff which we would not be justified in undertaking at the moment, to re-collate the earlier certificates which have not been examined since 1950 since, as I say, it is only in a very small minority of cases where there is a discrepancy between the figure on the face of the certificate and the actual amount repayable.
I return to the main argument of my noble Friend. The figures he gave were perfectly accurate. About 300,000 claimants are repaid annually at a cost, as he said, of £17 million and the amount still outstanding is about £443 million. If that were disbursed today, as he put it, "in toto forthwith", and if it were desired to do that without affecting the general economic position—in other words, without increasing overall purchasing power—that could only be done either by reducing some other expenditure by the same amount, or by increasing taxation by the same amount.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: indicated dissent.

Mr. Simon: My noble Friend shakes his head and I know he would not be prepared to countenance that. On the contrary, he looked forward to a massive reduction of taxation next year in addition to this £440 million odd he was


proposing should be disbursed in toto forthwith.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The trouble is that I should be out of order if I explained why I shook my head.

Mr. Simon: It must be a great comfort to my noble Friend at any rate to shake his head and remain in order. The fact remains that it is true that if one wants to perform this operation without increasing total purchasing power—in other words, without taking an inflationary step—it can be done only at the cost of reducing expenditure or increasing taxation. My noble Friend recently supported my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his assessment of the economic situation which faces the country today. The Chancellor in his Budget assessment, reckoned that the proper increase in the purchasing power of the country's economy which he could contemplate in the way of remission of taxation was about £50 million.
My noble Friend supported that; but that cannot be right if, at the same time, we are asked to disburse a further £443 million. An increase in the payment of post-war credits, it is argued, may be undertaken deliberately as a means of increasing purchasing power in a severely deflationary situation. That was, in fact, one of the two concepts which lay behind the original post-war credits. There was also the rather narrower, less academic concept of sweetening the inevitable increase in war-time taxation. My noble Friend has made out his case that a pledge has been given which has not been redeemed; but there has never been a situation since the end of the war when the economy could have afforded this concession supervening on all the other inflationary pressures. There has been no situation since the war so deflationary that the Government could deem it right to increase purchasing power by this means.
In his Budget, and during the passage of the Finance Bill, the Chancellor made it clear that there is no case for such a large injection of artificial purchasing power into the economy and, therefore, I must tell my noble Friend that we cannot accept that this measure should at any rate be taken in toto and forthwith.

Orders of the Day — RETIREMENT PENSIONERS (EARNINGS RULE)

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I have had, at least in the past, one minor virtue in that I have always tried to uphold the sanctity of the law and the processes of the legal system of this country without question. It is sometimes said by certain persons that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor; but that I have always emphatically denied. However, I have denied it in the last few years with less certainty, and I have wondered in the last few weeks about it much more.
Our legal system is one of the best in the world, and I am not going to question that even by reference to the views of a French criminologist, M. Locard, of Lyons, in the case of Timothy John Evans and the advantages of delay in the execution of justice. The virtue of our system is in the integrity of our judges. That is what is said, and it is so; but other countries have that virtue and I have always believed that the one great virtue here is in the integrity of our police forces, responsible very largely to the jurisdiction of the Home Office—forces with a toleration and a desire not to create cases where cases are not necessary, and in which we have a great advantage in the administration of justice and our criminal law.
That is why I have often felt a grave feeling of disquiet when I have seen the continued habit of Government Departments creating their own unofficial police, with ill-defined powers, charged with the job of investigating alleged offences without the training and without the traditions of our police forces. They may well be perfectly honest and industrious people, but they are without the great advantages which a police force has. That is why, on 23rd June, I raised by Questions the case of Mr. Whybrow, an old-age pensioner of undoubted integrity, against whom nothing had been suggested, so far as we know, in his life, who had been drawing his pension and working part-time. When a rather urgent and important building job came along, he worked a few hours longer, and he drew the money. Whether he knew all about it or not, we do not really know, but the


evidence of his integrity is in the steps he took afterwards. He found himself being interviewed by this unofficial force employed by the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance, on an allegation that he had drawn wages for work which he had done—which was to the benefit of the community—and that he had not done what he ought to do, namely, refuse the wages or refuse a part of his pension.
I think that, if those of us who are in the habit of filling up forms were put on oath about it, we should say that, very often, we sign the forms and leave it to accountants to fill in the figures. We may be aware of these things. But does the Parliamentary Secretary really think that every old-age pensioner has these things in mind and knows all the regulations, understands them perfectly, and has it in mind that working an extra half-day a week will bring him, for some reason or other, within the purview of the criminal law?
What has the criminal law to do with these things? A man can owe £100,000, file his petition in bankruptcy, and go free. A man who owes £10 on a wireless set is brought up before the county court, an order is made for payment, and he goes to prison if he does not pay. A greatly increasing number of British citizens, compared with the situation ten years ago, is now in prison on orders of the county courts. We have now a situation in which we create crime. I beg the House to believe that I speak with complete sincerity when I say that, if we are to have a criminal law at all, and it is to be respected, it is essential that one should not keep bringing up before the criminal courts perfectly decent people for mistakes in signing forms or breaches of regulations which they do not clearly understand. It brings the criminal law into contempt, and I cannot see why it is necessary to make crimes of these minor offences.
No doubt the hon. Lady will say that these provisions were established under the Labour Government. Many things were done under the Labour Government which I criticised at the time, and some which I wish I had criticised at the time. But we are now in 1958, and we can look on the effects of past legislation and consider whether it needs review.
No one suggests that Mr. Whybrow was brutally treated or anything like that. But the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance was not at his best on the occasion when I asked him about it. When we put the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in the political dock, he is inclined to adopt the attitude of the old lag, try to look completely innocent, and look round for other people who should have been charged. We had the usual talk about protecting his officers, but this was not what we were complaining about. No one complained about his officers. We complain about the rule and its effect. If there is any one subject on which I am certain that I can speak as an expert, it is the effect of legal proceedings on the minds of people charged. Very few people realise that the effect on the mind of the person charged is very often in direct ratio to the honesty of the accused—the more decent, the more respectable, a man is, the more suffering he goes through when he is confronted with the possibility of being brought before the courts.
Comparisons are odious. Mr. Whybrow lost his life. He committed suicide rather than face the possibility of proceedings. The Minister said that there was no question of proceedings. His Department had decided not to proceed. But the man was cautioned that anything he said might be used in evidence. The Minister really has not looked at the rules of law, nor, indeed, are his officers instructed in the rules of law. The Judges' Rules make it quite clear—I need not quote the exact words from Stone's Justices' Manual, where they are set out—that the officer should administer the caution only when he has decided that a prosecution may result. It is only at that stage that a formal caution is administered or only when a person is actually under arrest. Until then the interviews are informal and information can be exchanged.
The result of that on the mind of Mr. Whybrow was very bad. Comparisons are odious and I have no desire to elaborate any other matter. But this man committed suicide on the possible threat of a charge relating to £4. It may be said that this is a very exceptional case, that it has happened only once, and that it may not happen again. I should have been rather disposed to


take that view but that we read in the paper two days ago of a man charged with defrauding the Inland Revenue for 16 years of a sum of £23,000 and the proceedings were withdrawn on his admission of guilt because of the illness of his wife.
I do not criticise that at all. I take the view that no one has ever been improved by being put in prison, and that a lot of people are made a good deal worse by it. There are some people who have to be put in prison for the protection of society, but the fewer people we put in prison the better for the community at large. I do not criticise that withdrawal of proceedings, but I do say that when a case is made out and is not contested involving a sum of £23,000 over a large number of years and that case is not proceeded with, it does by comparison cause to seem somewhat unfavourable the attitude of the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance towards an old-age pensioner who has done work and received pay for it to a very small amount indeed.
I would have left the matter, if I had not received particulars of another case two days ago. I received only today permission to use this name. For that reason I have not been able to give the Parliamentary Secretary details of the case. I got permission only this morning to reveal this, and she has had no opportunity of investigating the matter. However, I think I have sufficient facts here to quote this case and I think I ought to quote it to the House in view of the fact that the House is about to adjourn for twelve weeks.
Thomas William Turner was born in 1888. He was born in poor circumstances. He left school when he was 10 or 11 years of age. Because he was a deeply religious lad he stayed on at night school reading the Scriptures to try to qualify himself for his great ambition to become a local preacher. At the age of 11 he settled in the village euphoniously named Shipton-under-Wychwood in Oxfordshire. He lived and worked there for fifty years in the same neighbourhood. He scarcely left the scene of his labours for fifty years. For fifty years he worked to the satisfaction of his employers and for fifty years he was a preacher on both the Baptist and Methodist circuits of the district and

became a man highly respected and deeply loved.
I am told in particular that he was passionately attached to the children, who were even more passionately attached to him:
His life was gentle; and the elements
So mixed in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world, 'This was a man!'
Whether he was the village Hampden or some inglorious Milton I do not know, but he lived a useful life, he lived an honest life, he lived a reputable life, and that he was respected is beyond doubt.
He brought up a family in terms of the ambition we all have, that our children should enjoy a slightly better standard of life than we had, if we can make it so, or at least have expanding opportunity of living and living abundantly. He taught the Gospel as he believed it, and at the end of a blameless life he retired and went to live in another little village in Oxfordshire, surrounded by friends.
He was a man who loved nature. There was not much exciting in his life, but he loved life and life was good—good until the spring of last year. In the spring of last year, having retired, he was doing work for a Mr. Gardner, and Mr. Gardner was not only his employer but also his friend, and he was not only his friend but he was also his wife's brother-in-law.
Had there been the slightest desire to diddle anybody, nothing would have been more easy than for Mr. Gardner to give him a few extra shillings for his hours of work and to say nothing about it. But nobody thought of this at all. Mr. Turner, a man of the highest reputation, worked for Mr. Gardner at busy times, and in the course of that work, it is alleged, and over a fairly considerable period, he had drawn the sum of £2 10s. more than the limit to which he was entitled if he qualified for his old-age pension.
Let me make it quite clear. It was not £2 10s. a week, but £2 10s. in all. How amazing it must have been for a man like that to read the story about a police inspector who spent £86 in a night club in the course of his duty and who was indignant when someone asked him to account for £5.
It was suggested that Mr. Thomas William Turner had overdrawn £2 10s. in disqualification of his full rate of old-age pension. If such a matter had been drawn to the attention of the police they would have laughed and said, "Well, we know Tom, he is not that sort of chap." The police inspector would have said, "I will just nudge his memory next time, but we will not go up to his house and upset him."
But in a tiny village in Oxfordshire a police inspector cannot be sent to see someone in order to find out the facts and make inquiries without the whole village knowing about it. Within an hour or two there is whispering all round the village, and there is conjecture. The finger of shame is pointed at whoever is under suspicion of doing anything wrong.
Even in a kindly village, as I understand this one was, and even when surrounded by friends, little matters of local excitement make themselves felt. I am not quite sure about the date, but I think that it was in the spring of last year that the inquiries were made. Mr. Turner was told that he was under suspicion of having committed an offence. I do not suggest that anyone behaved improperly. These are not easy jobs to perform, and no one suggests that what happened was performed with any exceptional lack of tact.
Mr. Turner's pension book was taken from him and from that moment it was not quite the same life for him. The sun rose and the sun set, but tomorrow was no longer a new day. Tomorrow was a continuation of agony, worry and fear for this man whose life had been spent in teaching the Gospel and in trying to show his fellows how they should behave. He was suddenly confronted with the possibility of a criminal prosecution, and with the loss of his character and reputation.
We can now say that no one would have pointed a finger of scorn for a thing like that. But the real question is how it affects the mind of the man charged. I ask the House to say that in no other organisation, for so small a matter, would so large a sum have been spent in making inquiries. A simple letter of warning saying, "You cannot do that", would have been sufficient.
As I say, Mr. Turner's pension book was taken away from him and from that day he became a very worried man. He travelled to Oxford in May and repaid the £2 10s. The sun rose and the sun set again for him. But nothing came from the Ministry. His friends were worried about it. It was not until 2nd August that his pension book was returned and then only was he told that no prosecution would take place.
Mr. Turner went through this agony for three months, and it got to the stage where life held very little value for him. In spite of his friends, in spite of his relatives and in spite of everyone trying to comfort him, this thing weighed upon his mind. He may have asked himself the perennial question:
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of dispriz'd love, the law's delay.
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin."?
Perhaps he thought, because he was a deeply religious man, that he would take his case before a tribunal beyond this world where the law is mercy and judgment is not in terms of condemnation but of understanding.
On 25th September he committed suicide. He was found hanging from the banister in his house. It may be said that one should not take up the time of listening senates to deal with individual cases, but is this sort of thing necessary, and being done in our name? The Minister of Pensions talked about the loss of £100 million if he altered the regulations. Is it necessary that the Minister should have a private detective force with no rules? Is not this a matter for the police? If we want to set on people with no great experience of dealing with the law let these people be put on to parking offences and let the police deal with allegations of this kind.
No superintendent and no village police constable would ever have dreamed of proceeding like this. There would have been a little friendly word of warning and a remark to the chief constable that here was a man of the highest reputation whom the police were quite sure had done nothing deliberate or underhand but


who, quite openly and through a misunderstanding, had committed a minor breach of a rather difficult and technical law.
If the House is to hold the position which it should hold in the esteem of the people, we ought to be a little more careful in future when we make regulations. We should lay down provisions for them to be administered with humanity, decency, tolerance and understanding, and with respect for human dignity and respect for the individual. We must try to avoid tragedies of this kind, which have ruined a well-spent life and brought great suffering and misery to the friends, relatives and descendants of this honest man.

11.38 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (Miss Edith Pitt): The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale) was kind enough to notify my Department that he proposed to draw attention to the case of Mr. Whybrow. When he began I thought that I should find myself in some difficulty, because it seemed to me that the hon. Member's complaint was against the administration of the law, which is not properly a matter for my Department, despite its multifarious duties. Nevertheless, the hon. Member went on to deal with specific cases which affect my Ministry, and I will do my best to reply.
I must give the House one or two facts about the case of Mr. Whybrow, because the hon. Member, I am sure quite unwittingly, has misled the House. I should like the facts to be clear for the record. The hon. Member mentioned that the man had worked only a few hours longer than he was permitted to do before the earnings rule came into operation. That is not quite correct. He worked from 30th December, 1957, to 5th March, 1958, and during the whole of that time his earnings were above the permitted sum.

Mr. Hale: He worked three days instead of two.

Miss Pitt: If the hon. Member refers to his words in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will see that he has given the impression that this man worked only a few hours longer.

Mr. Hale: No.

Miss Pitt: I am trying to make it clear that he worked longer, that it was for a period of weeks, and that his wage averaged between £3 16s. 10d. and £5 3s. 0d., so that he exceeded the earnings limit fairly considerably. He did not disclose his earnings.
The overpayment was not, as the hon. Member said, £4. It amounted to £18 3s. 0d. I do not want to exaggerate these differences—this is a tragedy—but it is essential that we should have the correct facts.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Lady is doing me an injustice and, in so doing, is doing herself an injustice. I was referring to the Question which I put down and to which I have referred. It is reported in HANSARD thus:
Mr. Hale asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance whether he is aware that William Whybrow, aged 69 years, who was drawing a retirement pension of £2 13s. 0d. a week, took a temporary post for three days a week at £4 a week as a property repairer and committed suicide when he heard that the matter was being investigated with a view to prosecution …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd June, 1958; Vol. 590, c. 6.]

Miss Pitt: The hon. Member referred to a few hours' work. However, those are the facts, and I do not want to pursue them beyond making them clear.
Because of the overpayment, Mr. Whybrow was twice seen by an inspector from our Ministry, the second time, under caution. He offered to repay the amount he had overdrawn. Again, I make it clear that at that stage, although a statement was taken from him under caution, there was no threat of prosecution.

Mr. Hale: A caution is a threat of prosecution.

Miss Pitt: Not necessarily, as I shall explain.
The hon. Gentleman said that in his reply to the hon. Member in June my right hon. Friend said that there would have been no question of prosecution, but the hon. Gentleman has not refreshed his memory from HANSARD sufficiently, since my right hon. Friend said that there was no threat of prosecution when Mr. Whybrow was seen for the second time.


I cannot say whether there would have been a prosecution, but in any event it did not arise because the man took his own life.
When my right hon. Friend answered the hon. Member on 23rd June, he expressed himself as very sorry about this tragedy. I should like to add to that. Suicide is a dreadful thing, not only because a life is lost, but because it affects the family concerned for a long time thereafter. I very much regret that we are discussing this case again tonight, because it will revive for this family the tragedy of last month.
I must again take up what the hon. Member said about Mr. Whybrow not knowing that he had broken the law and people not understanding the law. We make that fairly clear in the instructions which we give to pensioners, and I have taken the trouble to bring with me some specimen pension order books. The one used at the time Mr. Whybrow was drawing his pension—and there has since been an amended one—shows quite clearly in heavy type on the front page:
Earnings over 50s. a week must be reported.
In the instructions inside the book it says:
If you earn more than 50s. in any calendar week, do not cash the order due for payment in the following week. Instead, complete the 'Declaration of Earnings' form.
The later book, which is now in use, says, again clearly and in heavy type:
Before you cash an order read the coloured instruction pages in this book. Earnings of 51s. or more in any week must be reported.
A similar statement is contained within the book.
That is fairly plain and straightforward, and I believe that the vast majority of pensioners understand the earnings rule. They know that if they earn above a certain figure, they ought to declare the amount of their earnings.
Mr. Whybrow had to be interviewed because he had committed an offence and it had come to our knowledge. What the inspector did was quite proper, and I am glad that the hon. Member has made it clear that he has no complaint against the inspector. When I knew that the hon. Member was raising this matter, I went through the papers personally, and

I was particularly struck by one sentence of the inspector's report. It appears that Mrs. Whybrow did most of the talking, and the report says:
Mrs. Whybrow told me that the employer had been to warn her husband that I had been through the wages records and that they had been expecting me to call. She mentioned that her husband had been worried in case he had to go into Court. I remember my reply was in the form of an assurance as I could not then say whether there had been fraudulent intent and, as an Inspector, I am at all times required to keep an open mind when investigating irregularities.
That makes clear the position of the man who conducted the investigation, and it shows what is the status of the investigating officer. It is not for him to decide whether a prosecution will follow any inquiries he may make.
The hon. Member very generously said that he had not given notice of the other case he mentioned and, therefore, I could not be expected to answer tonight, but I met him briefly this afternoon and he told me that he had a case from Oxfordshire and I have been able to make a brief investigation and am able to add a little to what he said.
I had not intended to mention the name, for, again, I did not want to distress the family—but the hon. Gentleman gave the name as Mr. T. W. Turner. He spoke of this case with some eloquence, effect and emotion, but he did not give the whole of the facts as I know them.
It is true that this man was a retirement pensioner and a part-time lay preacher. He worked for his brother-in-law and failed to disclose his earnings. He was interviewed in the same way as Mr. Whybrow, and, presumably under caution. He offered to repay, and did repay the money. The decision was taken not to prosecute, and he was advised of this on 2nd August, 1957. This was a technical offence.
He committed suicide on 25th September, which was eight weeks later. At the inquest, his brother-in-law admitted that Mr. Turner was aware that the Ministry was not taking proceedings. I know that it weighed on his mind that this investigation had taken place, but the evidence also showed that he had some trouble over Income Tax returns and, though it was not read in court, he did leave a suicide note. It referred


to this, and the coroner in summing up suggested that trivial matters had preyed
on his conscience.

Mr. Hale: I have reports of the inquest from three local newspapers. There is no mention of a word of that, and the whole of the evidence accepted by the coroner was not disputed as reported in these papers. They all report this as a tragedy resulting from this inquiry. The whole of the evidence was that this man commenced to go down with this inquiry and had gone down the whole time since.

Miss Pitt: I am not trying to suggest that this was not one of the things that preyed on his mind, but my information is that there was this other worry about Income Tax. That was mentioned in the suicide note, which was not read in court.
Nevertheless, here are two cases which concern the hon. Member as they concern all Members, and I should like to make clear the procedure which we use. We have a duty. We operate the National Insurance Act. To qualify for retirement pensions people must prove that they have retired from full-time work, and if they take up work the earnings rule operates. It is our duty to see that it operates properly.
Where we are reasonably certain that a person has committed an offence, an investigating officer is instructed to investigate and is instructed that the interview should be conducted under caution. If the caution is not administered a statement cannot normally be admitted by the court as evidence.

Mr. Hale: The hon. Lady should read the Judge's Rules and find out what they say. I have known them for forty years.

Miss Pitt: If we later had to offer in court evidence not taken under caution, we should be likely to be criticised, and in fact have been criticised in one case—criticised for not taking evidence under caution.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: On a point of order. Is it in order for a Minister to read the contents of a letter which was written before a suicide and which was not read to the court?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): What the hon. Lady has said is not out of order.

Mr. Hale: Can the hon. Lady tell us how she knows the contents of a note which was not read out at the inquest?

Miss Pitt: If the hon. Member wishes to ask me a question, perhaps he will do so properly.
I should like to clear up the point about the form of caution. It follows exactly that laid down in the Judges' Rules. We have the identical wording. The suspected person is given an opportunity to explain his conduct even when the evidence of committing an offence is otherwise complete. That is very proper and in accordance with our own ideas of justice. The decision to prosecute is not taken until after the interview, when all the relevant evidence has been assembled, and it is at this stage that any mitigating factors are taken into account. I would like to emphasise that the statement made under caution may help the individual concerned.

Mr. Hale: Does the hon. Lady know that we are now dealing with the law of England? It has been laid down on this matter by Her Majesty's judges. They have laid these things down after long dispute in this House over gross miscarriages of justice associated with the taking of statements. These rules now control the whole procedure of the law, whether it is administered by the police or by any local Ministerial O.G.P.U. The second rule says:
Whenever a police officer has made up his mind to charge a person with a crime he should first caution such person before asking any question, or any further question, as the case may be.
That is the law, and the law is not altered by a Parliamentary Answer by the Minister of Pensions or his Parliamentary Secretary.

Miss Pitt: Nevertheless, if we are to proceed to take legal action against persons who have infringed the law we must take proper precautions when inviting them to make statements on these matters, and I think that the action we take is quite proper.
I was trying to explain that the statement made in some cases helps the individual. It may throw a favourable


light on his action, and it can be taken into account later, when we decide whether or not to pursue the matter further. None of these cases—and they are fortunately rare—is straightforward; they are very complicated. We have the task of administering the law as Parliament has laid it down.
I do not wish to bring in any political controversy, but the hon. Member himself suggested that it was his own party which passed the Act. This is correct, and both parties have operated it. Nevertheless, for the purpose of administering it we have to follow the provisions of the law. I am sure that my officers administer it as wisely and generously and with as much humanity as possible. We have discussed the tragedy of suicide tonight. Nevertheless, I feel that in the case of the large majority of people who draw retirement pensions from our Department we should find that things run without difficulties, complications and legal cases, and I should like particularly to emphasise that I am satisfied that my officers do a very good job.

Orders of the Day — HIGH COMMISSION TERRITORIES

11.54 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: When I gave notice earlier this afternoon that I intended to raise the matter of the Protectorates, I said that I would be doing so in the early hours of the morning. I am glad to find that I was wrong by six minutes and that we are still meeting on Thursday night. I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for keeping you so late, and I express my appreciation to the hon. Member the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations for being in his place, and to the civil servants who assist him on these occasions.
But I make no apology for raising this issue. The High Commission Territories are important to a greater extent than their own populations or areas. They are important because they are either bordered by the Union of South Africa or—in one case—surrounded by that Union. Whatever happens in those territories will have a profound significance on future events in the Union itself. I am one of those who believes that the most effective way in which this country could

exert an influence towards liberty, human equality and good race relations throughout the southern area of the continent of Africa would be to make our own Protectorates models of advancement, social and economic progress and racial equality.
I could tonight raise many issues in relation to the Protectorates. Sometimes when I hear the régime in the Union of South Africa denounced I feel that we should be careful how we do that, because of the conditions in our own Protectorates. I am very well aware, for example, that thousands of those who are residents in our own Protectorates have to leave to gain a livelihood within the Union of South Africa, and I might be excused tonight if I spent some time in drawing attention to the appallingly low standard of wages which exist for workers in our British Protectorates.
Or I could tonight develop the important new effects of the discovery of mineral resources in these three British Protectorates. For very many years now we have spoken with deep feeling about the conditions which surround the gold mines, the diamond mines, and now the uranium mines in the Union of South Africa—the compounds in which men are segregated, the pass system, the shack towns, the wage standards.
I think I should be doing a service tonight if I were to urge that when minerals have been discovered in our own Protectorates we should take precautions to ensure that those conditions should not be repeated in areas for which we are responsible, and particularly that Africans who are employed in them should have the opportunity of being trained for skilled jobs so that in time they may be able to fulfil any function in the development of those mineral resources.
However, because of the hour I shall refrain from developing those points, and I propose to concentrate on two matters which are now of urgent importance. The first is the need to begin to establish legislatures in the High Commission Territories, and the second is to sound a warning regarding the defence agreement which has been made with the Union of South Africa.
If I interpreted the Under-Secretary's tones correctly at Question Time, he felt


that I was a little unjust in referring to the arrogance of the system under which one individual, who does not even live in the High Commission Territories, by personal decree, has all the power of the law. I do not know of any territory on the whole face of the earth where the law is in the hands of one man as it is in the case of the British Protectorates in South Africa. In that remark I was not referring to the personal character of Sir Percivale Liesching, I was referring to it as a system. I say that in this democratic age, where we are recognising the right of people of all races and colours to advance towards self-government, it is an absolute anachronism that there should be British territories where the personal decree of one man, the High Commissioner, should be the law of these areas.
I am quite aware of the fact that there are resident commissioners. I am aware that there are advisory councils in those territories. I am aware that, in the last resort, the Minister for Commonwealth Relations in this country and the Under-Secretary responsible to this House are the final authorities. But when Westminster is seeking to govern territories thousands of miles away, the action of the High Commissioner in Pretoria who can govern, by decree, inevitably has a bigger influence than we can exert from day to day here, and inevitably the Minister in this country must act largely on his advice.
Within the last few weeks there have been two remarkable developments in the British Protectorates in the advance towards the establishment of legislatures. I should find it difficult to express the welcome which I feel towards the recommendation given by the Joint European and African Council in Bechuanaland for the establishment of a Legislative Council there. I will acknowledge that when Tschekedi Khama and Seretse Khama were in this country some of us discussed with them the possibility of the African Advisory Council making this proposal. We did not dare to hope that the European Council would make a similar recommendation. It is a thing of profound significance to South Africa where racial antagonism exists between white and black. It is a thing of profound significance for Central Africa, where there is now conflict between the African

and European races regarding their franchise and their legislature, that Bechuanaland should have this great honour of being the first territory in the British sphere in Africa where Europeans and Africans have united in making a demand for the establishment of democratic rights.
It is especially significant in the South African context because of its influence within the Union, where Africans, Indians and coloured persons are denied any legislative rights at all and are denied any right to vote. This is the kind of influence that I want to see in the Protectorates extending to the areas around, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will give it the warmest welcome. More recently, within the last ten days, what has happened in Bechuanaland has also happened in Basutoland, not in the sense of a joint proposal by Europeans and Africans, but in the Basutoland National Council. There the demand has been made for the establishment of a legislature.
I do not want to speak in an over-controversial way this morning. Therefore, I say to the hon. Gentleman that I welcomed the speech, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) referred today, which he made when in South Africa. My appeal is that the example which has been given in Bechuanaland and Basutoland by their recommendations, and which undoubtedly will be followed before very long in Swaziland as well, should be made the first concern in the mind of the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Minister, and that during the period of the Recess a great effort should be made to work out proposals so that when we meet again at the end of October the hon. Gentleman will be able to bring proposals before this House which will satisfy the demand of the Joint Council in Bechuanaland and the demand of the Basutoland National Council.
I pass from that to the defence agreement. Again, I sensed that hon. Members were a little disturbed, because at Question Time I asked what fundamentally is the case for Britain entering into a defence agreement with the Union of South Africa when that Government in many respects is more tyrannical than the Communist countries against whom


that defence agreement is being prepared? I choose my words very carefully. I think hon. Members know that I have a passionate belief in liberty and denounce the totalitarian aspects of Communism with a sincerity which no hon. Member can exceed. But in the Union of South Africa we have a majority of the population denied the vote, not on grounds of education, not on grounds of income, not on grounds of civilisation or culture, but only on the ground of the pigment of their skin. I do not know any principle in political relations which could be more tyrannical, more un-Christian, more utterly indefensible, for any Government to pursue than that. When the Government of South Africa applies that kind of principle of apartheid, I say in that respect—

Mr. W. T. Aitken: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Is it not completely out of order to refer to the internal affairs of another self-governing part of the Commonwealth? Surely that is a question we are rather careful about in this House?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): It can be done only by comparison with others.

Mr. Brockway: I may have been over-emphasising it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I was doing it by comparison. What I was asking is that fundamentally and as a matter of principle, if the cold war is really a matter of ideology, if it is really a matter of liberty and democracy against totalitarianism and against the denial of liberty, then theoretically there is no more reason why we should have a military agreement with a Government which protects apartheid in South Africa than with Governments on the Communist side which are tyrannical and which are oppressive.
However, I pass from that to the second point which I raised at Question Time. Why should the Protectorates, except for their geographical position, be involved in a defence agreement with the Union which is their abhorrence and which is their great fear? It is their abhorrence because the vast majority of the people in the Protectorates are Africans who resent the policy of apartheid. It is their great fear because

they are always anxious lest the Union of South Africa shall carry out the policy of incorporation and involve them within the Union. I want to ask the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations what consultation he or his representatives have had with African opinion in the territories. I have read his answers to Questions very carefully, but he has said nothing more than "with the appropriate authority".

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): May I say that I answered it at considerable length and in detail during Question Time today?

Mr. Brockway: I was in the House and listened to the best of my ability—but I have not had the answers in their printed form—and I am not satisfied. In the case of Bechuanaland, did consultations take place with the African Advisory Council or the European Advisory Council, or with the Joint Advisory Council? In Basutoland, was there any consultation with the Basuto National Council, which is the representative body of the African population? In Swaziland, was there any discussion at all with the Native Authority? With whom did these discussions take place, and what was the response by those with whom the discussions took place? What did the Chiefs say? What did others say?
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a detailed reply, because I take the view that almost the last tyranny of all is the imposition on any people of military arrangements which they themselves have not willingly accepted.
I want next to look at the actual proposals in this defence agreement. They were stated in detail in HANSARD on 21st July. They include, first, over-flying rights, which are reciprocal; secondly, search and rescue operations; thirdly, an air strip in Bechuanaland to be inspected for use by South African Air Force aircraft in case of emergency landings; fourthly, a short access route through Basutoland; and fifthly, the right of the South African Defence Force to carry out reconnaisance of an emergency route to South-West Africa across Bechuanaland.
Incidentally, before I deal with the matter in its broader aspect, I want to ask whether the Commonwealth Relations


Office has taken into consideration that South-West Africa has been incorporated in the Union of South Africa against the recommendation and will of the United Nations. It was a Mandated Territory. The Union of South Africa has defied the United Nations in that matter. I ask the Minister to consider very carefully indeed whether defence arrangements which involve our Protectorates, which mean that the South African Defence Force will have the power to carry out an investigation or reconnaisance of an emergency route across Bechuanaland to South-West Africa, ought to be made. Have the implications of that, from the standpoint that the Union has incorporated South-West Africa illegally, in the view of the United Nations, been properly considered?
The hon. Gentleman may say that in general these are small and exceptional concessions to South Africa. I say to him that, once military concessions of this kind are begun, inevitably they extend. They were begun in 1955. They are extended now. Unless we protest now, what will they become in another three years? There is a very real fear among the peoples of the Protectorates that the steps now being taken will hopelessly prejudice their position in their resistance to incorporation with the Union of South Africa.
We are discussing tonight one of the critical areas of the world, critical for liberty, democracy, racial equality. The Protectorates offer a great opportunity for us to contribute to the triumph of liberty. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, in replying, will reassure us and remove the doubts which the Government's policy has engendered in our minds.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Graham Page: Some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) should not go unanswered from the back benches on this side of the House. With much of what he said I profoundly disagree, but I wholeheartedly agree with him upon the importance of this subject. At least, if he has done nothing else, he has given us the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on the great success of his recent visit to the High Commission Territories.
It is a matter of pride that the Commonwealth Relations Office, with all its obligations in the relationships between this country and the vast Commonwealth of Nations, can spare the time for the Under-Secretary to visit what one might call some of its smallest charges, though they are very important ones. Swaziland has about a quarter of a million population, Bechuanaland about a third of a million, and Basutoland about half a million—not much more than a million people in all, yet they are places of real importance to us, not from an economic point but—I will use the word the hon. Member used once or twice—from an ideological point of view. It is gratifying, too, that there have been, as I see it, immediate results from the visit of my hon. Friend to the High Commission Territories, both political and economic. Our responsibilities to these territories are surely political, economic, social and, in a sphere which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, defence, both internal and external.
The hon. Gentleman complained of the defence agreement with the Union, but surely this is a most sensible agreement. It would be utter folly to drop a sort of iron curtain between the Union and the High Commission Territories. I believe, and believe most sincerely, that the future of the High Commission Territories is with us, and I am second to none in resisting any encroachment on the High Commission Territories by the Union, but that does not mean that we should discard any idea of co-operation in defence of those territories. After all, we do not get frightened about the Channel Isles becoming a départment of France because France belongs to N.A.T.O. Surely we should co-operate in defence matters. It seems to me gross exaggeration to see something sinister or evil in those items of defence, which the hon. Gentleman gave the House, as being undertaken in those territories by the Union.
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his information about the people of the High Commission Territories being frightened or disturbed by this. So far as my information goes, the African leaders see no valid objection to this arrangement.

Mr. John Stonehouse: Would the hon. Gentleman please tell us from which sources he gets his information?

Mr. Page: I have certain friends among the African leaders in these territories, from whom I have taken the trouble to obtain as much information on this subject of defence as I could in the short time available.
Although the three territories are very diverse and it is difficult to make any generalities, there is one significant thing about all three territories, and that is the quality of the African leaders these territories have produced. In Bechuanaland, the name of the Khamas is well known to the House, but they are not the only African leaders wise in administration in that territory. Chief Batheon and others in that territory have proved themselves. In Swaziland, Sobuza II, the Paramount Chief, has been a wise and prudent administrator. In Basutoland, I would not go so far as to say that the Regent is a brilliant administrator, but with her advisers she has always gone along the path of administrative reform and improvement.
It is a significant thing that instead of becoming autocrats, as these African leaders might have become, because in many cases they are head and shoulders above their fellow men there, they have become more and more earnest and active democrats, and it is they, the African leaders, who urged the British administration to establish democratic institutions. I am sure they would all admit that they have had great guidance from the British Administration in doing that, even if the guidance at times has been the restricting hand of a parent.
Because of that guidance from the British administration, and because of the good relationship which one finds in the High Commission Territories between the African and the ordinary European there, those democratic institutions are now proceeding on the basis of partnership, as indeed the hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough drew attention to in referring to the resolution of the Joint Advisory Council in Bechuanaland.
Can we have any doubt that Bechuanaland is progressing rapidly towards a Legislative Council? I know that my hon. Friend will probably have to be cautious about this, because it is still under examination by the High Commissioner and the constitutional experts,

and so on, but in face of that very significant resolution, proposed by Mr. Russell England and seconded by Tshekedi Khama, in the Joint Advisory Council, proposing that Legislative Council and the repetition of that resolution in the African Advisory Council, proposed by Tshekedi Khama and seconded by Seretse Khama, I feel confident that the Legislative Council will come, and come very soon.
I hope that in the first instance it may be based on an equal representation of Europeans and Africans with, of course, to start with, an official majority. But that is the sort of partnership which one hopes to see in these territories.
In Basutoland, the partnership is rather different because there are no European settlers there, but progress is towards a Legislative Council there as well as a council which will turn this partnership between the British administration and the Paramount Chief, plus her Council, from a rather unsatisfactory dualism, as it is at present, into a working partnership. There, I imagine, the appropriate thing is an entirely African Council with a smattering of civil servants as members. I would not be afraid to give that sort of Council in Basutoland power to legislate for Europeans, provided, of course, that there were certain subjects reserved to the High Commissioner for a time.
In Swaziland there is, of course, a substantial European population, and it seems that a partnership can proceed there. The European Advisory Council has been working for a long time alongside the Paramount Chief and his Council. I am not sure of the line of progress here, but, as I say, I think that a partnership between European and African administration would be beneficial to the country. Perhaps the structure will develop from the great success achieved in the development of local government in Swaziland.
But all this political development must surely be based on economic development. I do not make that statement merely from the point of view of the production of the finance on which to base political and social advance, but because I believe that a good economic development is the cradle of good and responsible government.
In Bechuanaland, for example, as hon. Members know, the whole basis of life is


cattle. It is the life blood of the country. The C.D.C., with its Lobatsi abattoir, has done a great work in developing the cattle industry. But that cannot remain as a monopoly for ever. I hope that it will develop quickly into some form of producers' co-operative. It is in that sort of sphere of business management that the African learns responsible administration.
Dissatisfaction had been growing over the past few months in connection with the Lobatsi abattoir, and I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for responding so promptly to representations on this matter and for sending an officer of the Department there to review the situation. I hope that from that review some form of producers' co-operative may emerge.

Mr. Stonehouse: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that there is a grave handicap to the development of producers' co-operatives in Bechuanaland in so far as there is no department of the administration set up to assist the development of co-operative societies.

Mr. Page: I think that the hon. Member is quite right. The Department in Basutoland has had great success in developing a co-operative movement. I hope that something on the same lines may be done in Bechuanaland.
I hope, also, that in Bechuanaland the mineral development will prove successful, particularly the prospecting in the Bamangwato. It has been wise to leave negotiations of the mineral rights there so largely in the hands of the African leaders. One cannot tell at present what form the partnership between the Africans and those who wish to develop the minerals will take. They might find a precedent from the partnership between the Paramount Chief of Basutoland and Colonel John Scott in the development of diamonds in Basutoland, because there the Africans really benefit from the development.
Swaziland, of course, abounds in production potential, both agricultural and mineral. The Colonial Development Corporation has played, and looks like playing, a most important part there, and looks like playing an even more important part in sugar development there, now that the Union has given a large contract to Swaziland for sugar.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations could put on record the total funds of C.D.C. and C.D. and W. which have been subscribed to the High Commission Territories. It is not generally realised how much comes from this country for the development of those Territories.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough tended to give the impression that everything was at a standstill in the matter of the advance of the African, whereas great schemes of development are going ahead. The territories, of course, always want more, particularly in the development of communications. C.D. and W. roads are being developed in Basutoland and Swaziland, and Bechuanaland will benefit from defence agreements by reason of the road to South-West Africa.
The main restriction on development in these territories is the lack of railways, and it is here that we need a working arrangement with the Union. It seems to me that both the Union and the United Kingdom are, on this subject, playing a game of poker. I know that it is very expensive to lay a railway, but I have always wished that more consideration could be given and more investigation made into the production of a railway from the source of coal and iron ore. If there is coal and iron ore one can build rails on the spot and, as it were, pull oneself along by one's own bootlaces, laying the railways from the mine outwards. There would be a great possibility of development of railways in these territories by that means if only we had some working arrangement with the Union.
Too often criticism is made of the British administration of these territories without a realisation of the great work that is done there. We ought to offer sincere praise to those who carry on the administration in these territories and, indeed, to the British public for the financial support it gives to the territories. To say that is to speak in no way in derogation of the administrative achievements of the African leaders. Without being complacent, I think that we can be very optimistic about the future of these territories.

12.35 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): The hon. Member for Eton and


Slough (Mr. Brockway) will realise that I seldom find myself wholly or, indeed, largely in agreement with points which he puts in the exchanges which we have in the House from time to time on this and similar subjects.
I am very glad indeed that he has taken the opportunity, let slip by his Front Bench, to bring forward this subject for debate before the House rises for the Recess. I have been most anxious to have an opportunity, in conjunction with other hon. Members who are interested in this matter, to discuss in the House some of the problems of the High Commission Territories and perhaps to put right some of the misconceptions about them.
For instance, the hon. Member was quite wrong to depict these territories as neglected or depressed. The one impression I have from my recent visit to them is that they are on the whole extremely happy areas in Africa. If the whole of Africa were as happy as the High Commission Territories, it would be a very happy and contented place indeed.
It is perfectly true that there are criticisms of the Government, which is inevitable where direct administration exists, but we have a very good story to tell about the administration of the territories. As a result of my visit, I have no impression that there is any wish to see any change in the relations of the territories with the United Kingdom.
I am sure that that arises from the confidence which has been inspired in the peoples of these territories, both European and African, by the high standard of the administrative officers who serve there. One does not often get a chance to say this, and I want to pay an especial tribute to the three Resident Commissioners now serving there, and to their administrative officers and their technical advisers.
The truth of the matter is that the brunt of the work of building up and developing these territories, apart from the normal work of administration, falls upon their shoulders. What is of the greatest importance is that we should continue to ensure that the best type of administrator and technical adviser is made available.
Of course, to some extent that depends on the salaries which the territories are able to offer, as compared with other Colonial Territories in other parts of Africa. This is a matter which the High Commissioner has been anxious to have considered and which the Commonwealth Relations Office is equally anxious to have carefully considered. It has, therefore, been decided in principle that a commission should shortly visit the three High Commission Territories to consider the salaries and conditions of service for both European and African members of the various branches of the administrative services. In addition, I hope that they will be able to look into the question of the remuneration for the technical officers at the same time.
We fully recognise that to increase the ability of the territories to pay the salaries which are required and to meet the expenditure necessary for the development which is to take place in education, social services and the public services generally, it is essential that we should proceed with economic development as far as the resources of the territories allow. I fully recognise the part which the co-operative organisation can play, especially in a country like Bechuanaland which is at present dependent for its economic strength almost exclusively upon a single industry, the cattle industry.
I am glad to be able to tell my hon. Friend, the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) that we have obtained the services of Mr. B. J. Surridge, Adviser in Co-operation to the Colonial Office, who will be leaving this country on 13th August to visit the territories and will report on the appropriateness of co-operative methods for cattle raising in Bechuanaland. He will also visit Basutoland where already there is a flourishing co-operative movement in being.
I do not think he will be able at present to visit Swaziland, but I can report that there has recently been an investigation into co-operation there carried out by the Co-operative Officer from Basutoland, and that a report submitted by him as a result of his visit is being studied by the Resident Commissioner.
This is one side and a not unimportant side of the development taking place in the economic organisation of the country but, of course, again it depends largely upon resources. There has been some


progress in Basutoland in finding diamonds, as a result of the confidence which exists between Colonel Jack Scott, a very distinguished and experienced mining engineer and proprietor in the Union, and the Basutoland people. I can only hope, for the sake of Basutoland, that his investigations are successful.
My hon. Friend has mentioned progress which is being made in investigating the coal and iron ore resources of Swaziland. It is true that Swaziland, which was, only a few years ago, the Cinderella of the territories, is now on the high road to full development of its resources. We hope that the coal and iron ore will contribute to this but, of course, there is the allied question of ensuring that as these resources are made available communications which are necessary to carry them to the markets they need are also made available, and here we have very recently raised a loan of £1 million for road development in Swaziland. It is a small territory and this is a substantial sum. It shows the determination of the Administration there to ensure that as the resources of the territory become developable so the transport which is essential is brought into existence.
I fully agree with my hon. Friend that in Bechuanaland the negotiations which have been going ahead between the Rhodesian Selection Trust and the Bamangwato tribal authorities provide an extremely interesting experiment in partnership. I hope that they may be brought to a successful conclusion and as a result there will be same addition in the form of mineral resources to the economic strength of the territory.
The Colonial Development Corporation is under a certain amount of criticism, particularly in Bechuanaland, and the operation of the Lobatsi abattoir has been criticised. It has gone through difficult times, but recently it was announced that there was to be a contract for a substantial amount of meat to be exported from Bechuanaland to Israel. If this provides a permanent new market for the industry, in addition to the developments that have been taking place in the Congo and in the Federation, then the future of the industry is very greatly strengthened and that could not have happened if the Lobatsi abattoir had not already been in existence.
Therefore, whatever may be the criticisms of the past, the fact that there are now distant markets becoming available for the cattle industry in Bechuanaland is a result of the investment made by the Corporation in difficult days in that abattoir.
The hon. Member for Eton and Slough asked me two questions. He referred to constitutional proposals. We cannot at present make any comments on the proposals which have been debated in the Bechuanaland Joint Advisory Council, or those which have been debated in the Basuto National Council. These await the recommendations and views of the High Commissioner. But I can assure the hon. Member that we are extremely interested in and encouraged by the points of view which have been expressed in regard to this type of constitutional development.
It would be quite wrong and improper for me to try to commit my noble Friend as to the decision that he would make in the outcome, but I can assure the House that this type of development will be looked upon with great sympathy by my noble Friend and the Government. At present, we await the views of the High Commissioner on the various proposals which have been put forward. They must be very carefully considered in the light of all the circumstances before any final decision is made.
As for the defence discussions, I think that the House will agree that the hon. Member for Eton and Slough appeared to be trying to scrape together as many grounds for criticism as he could find, but that he found the material at his disposal extremely scanty. The truth is that these defence agreements are commonsense agreements in the circumstances of southern Africa. In the case of three of them, the advantages lie as much on the side of the Protectorates as on the side of the Union, and the impact that the other two would have on the Protectorates is small in the extreme. In any case, as far as somebody like myself, who is not an expert, can appreciate, they are logical to the development of the defences of southern Africa as a whole, in which the High Commission Territories have as great an interest as anybody else.
It does no service to whatever point of view the hon. Member may have in mind to exaggerate and cast doubt and suspicion upon something that is quite straightforward and is a commonsense solution and the basis of a reasonable partnership in the defence of a part of the world that is extremely important to us.

Mr. Brockway: Will the hon. Gentleman make some reference to the question I put about South-West Africa having been incorporated into the Union against the recommendation of the United Nations?

Mr. Speaker: I must intervene here. That was an action of the South African Government, for which this House is not responsible.

Mr. Brockway: I regret the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, were not here when I first referred to the matter, and that I expressed myself badly just now. My point is that one of the arrangements of one of these defence agreements is that there shall be an emergency route to South-West Africa, across the Bechuanaland Protectorate, and we are responsible for this agreement. I asked the hon. Member whether he had taken into account the implications of this emergency route to South-West Africa, in view of the fact that South-West Africa had been incorporated into the Union against the recommendation of the United Nations.

Mr. Alport: I can assure the hon. Member that all relevant—and I emphasise the word "relevant"—considerations were taken into account when these agreements were made.
I have already replied, in Answers to Questions last week, to most of the points relating to defence discussions which have been raised by the hon. Member. This is a late hour, and I do not want to keep the House any longer.

Mr. Stonehouse: We should like an answer to the question raised as to what consultations took place with the inhabitants of the Protectorates.

Mr. Brockway: And with what organisations.

Mr. Alport: If I may say so, I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was present, but I gave that in very great detail in answer to Questions earlier today, and it will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow. If he wishes any further information after studying the OFFICIAL REPORT, the hon. Gentleman is perfectly at liberty to put down further Questions when we meet after the Recess.
I was saying that this is late and I do not want to keep the House unduly, but I do hope that, when hon. Gentlemen, and particularly, if I may say so, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough, are raising matters relevant to the High Commission Territories, they will bear in mind the remarks I made earlier about the achievements which these territories represent for administration by the United Kingdom—administration carried out on a basis of liberal and highly progressive principles, in the interests of the people of those territories.
I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that out of these territories we have had no economic advantages in all the years that we have administered them. On the contrary, we have given many millions of pounds to the improvement of the conditions of the life of the people of that part of the world, and it is time, if I may say so, when, whether other people outside this country give us any credit for it or not, at any rate hon. Members in this House should pay credit where credit is due.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Gelligaer [copy laid before the House, 28th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ryton [copy laid before the House, 28th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Whitefield [copy laid before the House, 28th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Truro [copy laid before the House, 28th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Rural District of Tutbury [copy laid before the House, 28th July], approved.—[Mr. Renton.]

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to One o'clock.